midjourney_guide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only informational response (screens plus a sign-in link) but never states that calling it has no side effects, whether it starts a session, or whether it requires prior authentication. Enough to proceed cautiously, not enough to be confident.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the scope of the guide and closing with the imperative 'Call this first', which is exactly the sentence an agent needs to see. The parenthetical feature list is slightly inventory-like but not wasteful.

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 single free-text-parameter guidance tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the topic and the call ordering but leaves what the response actually looks like (docs text? screen identifiers? link format?) to inference. Adequate, with a visible gap.

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 one optional parameter, 'task', documented at 100% schema coverage with a clear free-text description. Baseline is 3 for high coverage; the description adds nothing about how phrasing the task changes the guidance returned, so no credit above baseline.

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 (Midjourney orientation material: screens, sign-in link) and enumerates the actions it covers (generate, vary, upscale, animate, organize). This clearly separates it from the action siblings (click, type, open, read, status), though the noun phrase 'How to work in Midjourney' is a shade indirect about what the tool itself returns.

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 ordering instruction that tells the agent this is the entry point before using the click/type/read siblings. It does not, however, say when to call it again later or how it relates to midjourney_status, which could plausibly overlap as an orientation call.

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