best_practices_get

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the output can be an outline or raw graph, which hints at response format variability, but does not explain what 'raw graph' entails or any other behavioral caveats. It is consistent with annotations.

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 sentence with clear front-loaded verb and resource, and a parenthetical that captures the format options without waste. It is 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?

For a straightforward read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential usage: provide a slug and optionally choose format. It is sufficiently complete given the annotations and schema, though the 'raw graph' term might be underspecified for new users. No output schema exists, so no need to describe return values.

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 schema already describes slug with an example, and format's enum values are self-explanatory. The description reinforces that slug is the lookup key and format selects outline vs raw, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of those formats. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but does not add significant depth.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'best-practice guide', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like best_practices_list (for listing all) and roadmap_get (for roadmaps). The mention of slug and format options makes the tool's specific purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a specific guide by slug, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like best_practices_list or provide when-to-use guidance. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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