讀取工作流程說明

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description contributes only the list of covered domains; it says nothing about caching, freshness, or whether the guidance is static policy text. Under the lowered bar for annotated tools, this is a modest but non-zero contribution.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the verb plus subject are front-loaded. It is tight and readable, though the trailing domain list is slightly enumerative rather than informative. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the lack of parameters keeps the surface simple. Still, for a guidance-fetch tool with ten siblings, the description omits when in a workflow to invoke it and how the four domains relate to the agent's tasks, leaving a real gap for correct selection.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty properties object. Per the rubric, a no-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no syntax to explain.

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 states a verb ('Get') and a resource ('guidance') and enumerates four topical domains, which gives some shape to the tool. However, it never clarifies what a 'workflow instruction' actually is, whether it returns a single document or a set, and it does nothing to distinguish this from the many sibling tools an agent could pick. Purpose is implied rather than concretely stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no trigger condition, and no reference to alternatives among the listed siblings. An agent knows it retrieves guidance for four domains but not when in a session it should be called or what to do if those domains are irrelevant. This is essentially no guidance.

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