get_creation_guidelines

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's role as a prerequisite for 'save_resource', indicating it's a read-only operation that fetches guidelines before creation actions. It mentions the return data structure and content, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it doesn't address potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 structured with clear sections (Use cases, Usage recommendations, Return data), which aids readability. However, it includes some redundancy (e.g., repeating 'Get creation guidelines' in different forms) and could be more front-loaded; the core purpose is stated upfront, but the detailed sections add length without always adding proportional value. Some sentences like 'Recommended to save guidelines for team reference' are less critical.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, return data structure, and ties it to sibling tools. The absence of an output schema is compensated by detailing the return format. However, it could briefly mention error handling or confirm it's a safe read operation, though the 'prerequisite' context implies non-destructive behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'type' fully documented in the schema (including enum values and descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3. It does provide context about when to use specific types (e.g., 'all: Get all guidelines (recommended)'), but this is implied rather than explicit in the description text.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get creation guidelines and standards for SVG graphics and Markdown documents.' It specifies the resource (guidelines) and the target domains (SVG graphics, Markdown documents). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node_details' or 'list_graphs' which might also provide informational content, though those appear to be graph-related rather than guidelines-focused.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'This tool is a prerequisite for the save_resource tool and must be called before creating and saving any resources.' It lists specific use cases (e.g., before creating SVG visualizations, before creating Markdown documents) and gives clear recommendations (e.g., 'Call this tool before starting any resource creation'). It also mentions an alternative/successor tool ('save_resource') for the next step.

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