get_phase_2_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the return format ('markdown-formatted guide'), which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or describe error/authorization behavior. For a read-only getter this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded and compact, with a clear first sentence and concise Args/Returns sections. It has minor redundancy between 'Get detailed guidance' and 'This tool provides step-by-step guidance,' but overall every section serves a purpose.

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 zero-parameter, output-schema-backed informational tool, the description adequately covers purpose, content, and return format. It does not explicitly state usage context or state-safety, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, this is sufficient.

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?

There are zero schema parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'ctx' as an argument is somewhat inconsistent with the empty input schema, but it does not need to add meaning for user-facing parameters since none exist.

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 detailed guidance') and clearly names the resource ('Phase 2: Architecture Analysis'), listing the guide's content (objectives, steps, tools, expected outputs). It distinguishes this tool from sibling phase guidance tools by explicitly identifying Phase 2.

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 explains what the guide covers but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools. Usage is implied by the 'Phase 2' name and the sibling set of phase guidance tools.

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