get_guided_tour

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: the output is an ordered list of file stops with explanations, and it works without prior indexing. This supplements the annotations with concrete output behavior. No contradictions found.

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?

Description is three sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second describes output, third lists topics and a usage note. Front-loaded and efficient, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return type (ordered list of stops with explanations). It covers prerequisites ('no prior indexing'), topics, and output structure. Could mention limits like max_stops or error behavior for invalid topics, but overall sufficient for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. However, the description adds value by listing specific topic options (architecture, data_flow, etc.) and the custom query format, which goes beyond the schema's 'Tour topic (default: architecture)'. This helps the agent understand valid 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?

Description states 'Generate a guided tour of a codebase organized by topic' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly defines the output as an ordered list of file stops with explanations. The listed topics (architecture, data_flow, etc.) differentiate it from sibling tools like analyze_architecture which focus on analysis rather than a guided walkthrough.

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?

Description mentions 'No prior indexing required' as a precondition, implying this tool can be used without extra setup. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when a tour is needed vs. a summary). More explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling to use instead would improve clarity.

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