get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves content, implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed content' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed content' includes, potential return formats, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'url' parameter clearly documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying it's for a 'drawing guide', but doesn't provide additional context like URL format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get detailed content') and resource ('specific drawing guide'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_categories' or 'search', which might also retrieve drawing guides in different ways, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' or 'search'. It mentions retrieving from a URL, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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