get_usage_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds useful subject-matter scope beyond that (units, undo, workflows, API pitfalls, error interpretation) but says nothing about the guide's form, length, or freshness, which matters for a document-fetch tool.

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 content sentence plus one action sentence, with no filler or redundancy. The list of topics is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it can learn from the guide.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained, and the description compensates by enumerating the guide's contents. For a zero-parameter read-only tool this is nearly sufficient; only the guide's size or format 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies a parameterless fetch and raises no schema questions.

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 makes clear this is a documentation/guide retrieval tool for the Blender toolset, and enumerates the subject matter it covers (availability, tool selection, units, undo, workflows, API pitfalls, error meanings). It is distinguishable from the only sibling, execute_blender_code, though it never states an explicit verb like 'returns' for what the call yields.

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?

'Read it once before multi-step work' gives explicit timing guidance, and the topic list implies it should be consulted before choosing among tools. There is no explicit exclusion (e.g., when it is unnecessary for trivial single commands), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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