get_phase_3_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the return format (markdown guide) and the content of the guide, and the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects or error behavior, but for a simple guidance-retrieval tool, this is reasonably 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 with the phase and topic, followed by a brief content summary and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no redundant or filler content.

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, low-complexity guidance tool, the description is complete: it identifies the phase, explains what the guide includes, and specifies the return format. The output schema and sibling tool names provide additional context, and the description does not need to elaborate further.

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?

With zero parameters in the schema, the baseline is 4. The description adds context for a `ctx` argument used for logging and error handling, which is useful even though the argument is not represented in the schema. No further parameter clarification is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed guidance for Phase 3: Threat Actor Analysis'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling phase-guidance tools. It further clarifies the guide's contents (objectives, steps, tools, expected outputs), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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 detailed Phase 3 threat actor analysis guidance is needed. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it, but the phase-specific naming among siblings provides sufficient contextual selection signal.

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