get_guide_section

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Read' plus the plural 'section(s)' conveys read-only access and possible multi-match returns, which is useful, but it says nothing about behavior on zero matches, ambiguity, or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with concrete examples that each add information rather than repeat it. Nothing wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the input form adequately and needn't describe return values. The remaining gap is against a crowded sibling set (search_guide, list_guide_sections, get_doc_section) where no differentiation is given.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the three examples show that 'query' accepts a decimal section number or a partial title fragment. It stops short of saying how partial matching works (case sensitivity, substring vs prefix).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Read guide section(s)') and the lookup key ('by number or partial title'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not name the closest siblings (search_guide, list_guide_sections, get_doc_section) to sharpen the boundary, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the examples ('3.4', 'Navigation', 'Checklist'), which show this is a direct lookup rather than a search. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over search_guide or list_guide_sections, nor any exclusion for when it will fail.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.