Retrieve sections of a curated how-to guide covering decision tables, patterns, gotchas, and checklists to find relevant bot framework guidance for accurate code.
List sections of the curated how-to guide (decision tables, patterns, gotchas, checklist).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load; it does establish that this is a non-mutating enumeration and names the content categories returned, which is real added context. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what a section entry looks like, though the presence of an output schema covers the return shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical; no filler. It could earn a 5 only by adding the one clause that routes the agent away from the adjacent guide/doc tools.
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 zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: purpose and content categories are clear. It is incomplete in that the crowded sibling set (list_doc_sections, get_guide_section, search_guide, list_examples) is never addressed, leaving tool selection to inference.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to explain and the baseline for an argument-less tool applies. The description correctly spends no words on inputs.
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?
Specific verb ('List') plus a clearly scoped resource ('sections of the curated how-to guide'), and the parenthetical enumerates the section categories (decision tables, patterns, gotchas, checklist) so the agent knows what a section is. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-sounding sibling list_doc_sections, which keeps it short of 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 standard list-then-get idiom opposite the sibling get_guide_section; the description never says to call this first to discover section identifiers, nor when to prefer search_guide instead. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.