get_phase_7_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool provides step-by-step guidance, includes conditional next steps based on code detection, and returns a markdown-formatted guide. The directory parameter is described as checking for code files, which indicates a read operation on the directory. This is sufficient for a non-mutating guidance tool, though it could be more explicit about side effects (none expected).

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 well-structured with a concise summary, details section, and clearly labeled Args/Returns blocks. It is not overly verbose, but the inclusion of 'ctx' (not in the schema) adds unnecessary clutter. Overall, every sentence serves a purpose except the ctx mention, which is solid.

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 and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns (markdown guide with conditional steps), the input parameter, and the conditional behavior. It could be slightly more complete by noting that it only reads the directory and does not modify any state, but for a guidance tool this is adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does by explaining the directory parameter: 'Directory to check for code files (default: current directory)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property definition. However, the description also mentions a 'ctx' argument that is not present in the schema, which could cause confusion, slightly reducing the score.

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 detailed guidance for Phase 7: Mitigation Planning." It specifies the exact phase and what it provides (objectives, steps, tools, outputs), distinguishing it from sibling guidance tools for other phases. The name and description together leave no ambiguity about the resource being accessed.

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 implies usage by naming the phase and listing the content (step-by-step guidance for mitigation planning), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other phase guidance tools or provide alternatives. The conditional note about 'next steps' gives some context, but there is no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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