jane_app_guide

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It does signal that this is an informational/how-to resource rather than a mutating action, and it lists the topics covered (screens, sign-in link). It does not say whether the result is static documentation or session-dependent, nor how large or structured the response is.

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?

Two short sentences with the capability summary front-loaded and the imperative directive last, which is the right emphasis. The parenthetical list is slightly cramped but each clause carries information.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it returns, what it covers, and that it should be invoked before acting. Only the shape of the returned guidance is left unspecified.

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 optional parameter, already fully documented in the schema as "What you want done in Jane App, in your words." The description adds nothing about how free-form the task string can be or how it shapes the returned guidance, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Jane App) and states what the tool delivers: guidance on its screens and the sign-in link, scoped to listing appointments and reading the wait list. That distinguishes it from the actionable siblings (click, type, open, close) which operate the UI rather than explain it.

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 an explicit, actionable ordering directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to the other jane_app_* tools. It does not name when NOT to use it or which sibling to pick for a given sub-task, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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