get_engine_guide

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, so the description carries a lower behavioral burden. It adds useful domain context by naming the engine variants and what each guide covers, but it does not explain the return format, depth, or whether the guide is static or project-specific.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted preamble, and the core resource description is front-loaded. The parenthetical engine details are compact, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly terse rather than polished.

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-only documentation lookup with no output schema, the description identifies the content and defines every possible engine input. The main remaining gap is the exact return format, but the stated purpose makes the general return content intuitive.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by defining each enum value: ps1 as low-poly 3D, woodcut as living broadsheet, and timeline as shared helpers for word timing and easing. This gives an agent enough information to choose the correct engine value.

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 clearly identifies the resource as an engine guide covering how an engine works and its API, and it enumerates all three engine choices with short descriptors. It is recognizable as a documentation lookup, but it lacks an explicit action verb and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as studio_info or get_house_rules.

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 description does not state when to call this tool, what prerequisites exist, or what alternative tools might be used instead. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'How an engine works and its API,' leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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