breezeway_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does convey the content type (screen walkthroughs, sign-in link), which implies non-mutating informational behavior and hints that authentication/sign-in is involved. It never states that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or what form the response takes, so the safety profile must be inferred.

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?

One compact sentence with the content scope front-loaded and no filler. The most actionable directive, 'Call this first,' sits at the very end rather than leading, which slightly weakens front-loading but does not waste words.

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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter guide tool, the description covers purpose, content, and call ordering. It omits how the optional 'task' input shapes the output and what the agent receives back (instructions? links? screen names?), which matters because there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('What you want done in Breezeway, in your words'), so the schema already explains it. The description never mentions that the guide is tailored by the supplied task, leaving the relationship between the parameter and the returned guidance unstated — baseline 3 given the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (a guide to working in Breezeway) and enumerates the covered activities — create, assign, comment on, and approve property tasks — plus the concrete content it serves (screens and the sign-in link). That is specific enough that an agent knows this is orientation material rather than an action tool, though the verb is implicit ('How to work in...') rather than a clean action verb.

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?

'Call this first' is explicit sequencing guidance that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other breezeway_* tools. It does not name any sibling or state when not to use it (e.g., for a repeat call once already oriented), so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage.

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