Guides

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description details each action's effect. However, it does not disclose side effects such as the permanent nature of 'remove-all' or requirements for undo. The potential destructiveness of 'remove-all' contradicts the destructiveHint=false annotation, but the description itself does not flag it.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and lists each action succinctly. No redundant phrasing, every sentence carries meaning.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers the main use cases (add, add-grid, remove-all, get) but does not explain return format for 'get' or handle potential errors. It is sufficient for basic understanding but could be more thorough for complex workflows.

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 100% schema coverage, the description adds little extra parameter meaning. It restates what each action does but does not clarify parameter constraints, units, or relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 manages document guides and lists all supported actions (add, add-grid, remove-all, get). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ps_create_document or ps_align by focusing exclusively on guide operations.

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 the available actions but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ps_guide instead of ps_create_document to add guides). No explicit when-not-to-use or feature comparisons are given.

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