rca_guide_get

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: built-in sample guides are readable by every account, only user-created guides are deletable via rca_guide_delete, and a not_found error is returned when a guide/section does not exist or is not the caller's. Return shapes are also disclosed, which goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary and then uses structured Args/Returns blocks; every line adds sourcing, ownership, or return-format context. It is slightly verbose and the emoji/plan note is minor noise, but there is no significant redundancy.

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 read-only retrieval tool, the definition covers what it returns, how IDs are obtained, error behavior, and shared-guide visibility; the schema and output schema fill in remaining field-level details. No critical call-time behavior is left unexplained.

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?

Context signals report 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It meaningfully explains guide_id and section_id with sourcing and effect, but token and client_id are not addressed in the description even though token is required and client_id affects namespace, so compensation is partial.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('troubleshooting guide' or a named section), and immediately distinguishes whole-guide vs single-section retrieval. It also references sibling tools for provenance and ownership, which helps an agent tell it apart from guide-management tools.

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 where guide_id and section_id come from (ingest/search/list, search results, or a prior get call), and clarifies ownership/visibility rules for shared vs user-created guides. It does not give an explicit 'use this instead of rca_guide_search when...' decision rule, so exclusions are implied rather than fully stated.

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