pf_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It usefully discloses the reading order and the topical structure, including the parenthetical clarification that pf-blockfile means team block files. However, it does not explicitly state that invoking the tool with a particular 'name' returns that guide's content, nor does it describe any error or fallback behavior.

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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every element contributes information. The reading order, task guides, and references are each presented as short lists with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple: one optional parameter with a default, an output schema is present, and no annotations are needed for a read-only knowledge-reference tool. The description names the default guide and all available guides, which is enough to select and invoke it. The only gaps are the implicit name-to-guide mapping and the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing, but these are minor given the low complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it does. It effectively enumerates the valid values for the single 'name' parameter: pf-debate, the task guides, and the reference topics. It does not explicitly say 'name accepts one of these values,' but the list serves as the defacto parameter vocabulary.

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?

The description identifies a specific, recognizable resource: PF debate knowledge, and enumerates its task guides and references. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like cut_card or caselist_search because those work with cards/caselists while this provides guides and reference material. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' but the resource and content list make the purpose clear.

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?

The instruction 'Read "pf-debate" first' gives a clear starting point and the task-guide list implies which guide to select for a given task. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of sibling tools like cut_card, get_card, or caselist_search, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage guidance is implied rather than directly contrasted with alternatives.

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