get_design_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing that detail=true returns instruction notes and full examples, but says nothing about size, format, or scope of the base response.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the purpose sentence is so terse it borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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 output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. But for a reference-style tool competing with five other reference/get-* siblings, the description doesn't say what content domain it covers, leaving an agent unsure when this is the right source of guidance.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it explains the single parameter meaningfully ('detail=true for instruction notes and full examples'), which the bare boolean in the schema does not convey. It could have also clarified the default (false) behavior but the added meaning is solid.

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?

It states the verb and resource ('Get design guidance'), but 'design guidance' is vague — it doesn't say what subject area the guidance covers or how it differs from siblings like get_manual_reference or get_instruction_capabilities. An agent can guess it's a reference tool but cannot distinguish its content from the other reference/help tools without opening it.

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 only guidance is a parameter hint ('Use detail=true for instruction notes and full examples'), which tells the agent when to set a flag but not when to call this tool instead of get_manual_reference, get_capabilities, or get_instruction_capabilities. No when-not or alternative routing is given.

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