get-integration-guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It correctly states the tool returns documentation (no side effects). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but as a read-only retrieval tool with a single enum parameter, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its behavior.

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 well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and then explains the parameter options. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.

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 simple retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool returns (guide with instructions, APIs, code snippets) and the three distinct parts. No gaps remain.

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 schema covers the parameter fully (100% with enum and description). However, the description adds significant value by explaining the exact content of each enum value: core covers products, cart, checkout, payment, orders; optional covers accounts, OAuth, discounts, bundles, downloads; rules covers validation, error codes, edge cases. This extra detail helps the agent choose correctly.

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 retrieves an integration guide for connecting a website to Brainerce, with specific content types (step-by-step instructions, API endpoints, code snippets). It distinguishes three distinct parts (core, optional, rules), setting it apart from sibling tools like get-code-example or get-critical-rules.

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 explicitly tells when to use each part via the 'part' parameter, but does not mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings. However, the sibling context implies this is the primary integration guide, and the parameter guidance is clear.

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