diana_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the material is 'verified' facts and that a single read per conversation suffices, which hints at volume. It does not disclose output size, format, or whether 'all' is a heavy payload, so the agent cannot plan context budget.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the read-once instruction, then the argument note. The trailing Args block mostly duplicates the enum, which is mild waste, but overall it is tight and well ordered.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize the return; it does so by naming the content areas this guide covers. For a single-parameter read tool, that is nearly complete, with only return format and size left unspecified.

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%, but the single parameter is a fully enumerated enum with a default of 'all', which the schema already conveys. The description's 'topic: all, or one part' line restates that and does not explain what each named part actually contains beyond the loose prose list at the top.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns 'the full guide to this server', and enumerates the parts it covers (workflow, verified DIANA 10.5 scripting facts, GUI-edit tracking, handbook rules, lessons). An agent can tell this is a documentation-retrieval tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with doc-oriented siblings such as diana_api_doc, diana_manual_search, or diana_glossary.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance: 'Read it once per conversation before modeling; the server instructions only hold the essentials.' That is a clear usage rule with a stated reason. It stops short of saying when to prefer other knowledge tools for narrow lookups instead of pulling the whole guide.

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