get_post_processing_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that omitting the goal returns a compact overview, while providing it returns a complete guide. It also lists example values for goal. No contradictions; behavior is well described.

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 concise and well-structured. It uses a clear header, describes the two modes, and then breaks down arguments with examples. No unnecessary words 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior: what happens with and without the optional parameter. It could mention that this is public help (not authenticated), but overall it's sufficient.

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 compensates by providing examples for material and possible values for goal. It clarifies that goal is optional and lists specific values like 'surface_finish', 'paint', 'strengthen'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves post-processing help for a given material and optional goal. The verb 'Get' and resource 'post-processing help' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like troubleshoot_print_issue, but given the context of post-processing vs troubleshooting, it's clear enough.

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 two modes (with or without goal) and what each returns, which helps in deciding how to use it. However, it does not compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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