adn_get_guide

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context: the guide is 'concise' and 'canonical', and limited to 'core' concepts. It does not describe return format or any edge cases, but annotations cover the safety profile, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, with the first stating the action and the second simply listing topics. There is no redundant explanation of the schema or annotations. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It describes the purpose, lists valid topics, and the annotations provide safety and idempotency. The only gap is the lack of explicit return format (e.g., whether the guide is text, markdown), but since it is labeled a 'guide', this is implied and not critical. A 4 reflects the minor missing detail.

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 has one parameter 'topic' with an enum listing the exact topics. The description repeats this list but doesn't explain what each topic means or what a guide entails. The main clause ('Get a concise, canonical guide for a core AudioDN concept') clarifies that topic selects the concept, so some semantics are provided. However, schema coverage is 0%, and the description fails to elaborate on the enum values, making this a marginal compensation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'guide' and scope 'for a core AudioDN concept'. It lists the exact topics covered, which distinguishes it from general documentation tools like adn_search_docs. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a guide for one of the listed topics. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the topic list and the phrase 'core AudioDN concept' provide clear usage context. Since there is no 'when-not' guidance, it falls short of a 5.

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