gal_tool_guide

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

The description discloses that the tool is a mapping table and mentions its focus areas, but it does not describe what the tool actually returns, how the agent should use the mapping, or whether it is a static reference or an interactive prompt. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, but for a read-only guidance tool, the disclosed nature is reasonably clear, though missing behavioral output details.

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 three short sentences, each with a distinct purpose: definition, usage trigger, and specific coverage. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains zero filler. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context for an agent to know when to call it and what it covers. It lacks a description of the exact output format, but for a simple meta-tool, this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for effective use.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context by implying the tool is a static guide the agent consults based on the user's wording, even though it requires no explicit input. This clarifies the tool's role beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline.

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 states it is a '对照表' (comparison table) mapping user wording to correct MCP tools, with a specific verb (选工具) and resource (correct MCP tool). It is distinct from sibling tools because it is a meta-tool for tool selection, not an actual operation. It also names specific disambiguation cases (scn→json, bundle.jsonl, PSB/TJS2100), further clarifying its purpose.

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 explicitly says '不确定用哪个时先调这个' ('call this first when unsure which to use'), providing a direct usage trigger. It also explains that it specifically distinguishes between ambiguous tool choices, guiding the agent on what kind of uncertainty this tool resolves. This is strong, actionable guidance without needing alternatives.

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