guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is dynamically derived from the registry, cannot describe refused tools, and that special callers get additional runbook content. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a 0-parameter info tool this is adequate.

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 informative and well-structured, with the main purpose front-loaded. It includes multiple relevant details but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the tool's return in general terms (answers 'what can I do' and 'next step', plus runbook for special callers). It is largely complete for its role as a guide, though the exact format of the response is not specified.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool returns and its dynamic nature, going beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a guide to what the user can do and next steps, and distinguishes it from the sibling whoami by explicitly contrasting 'what can I do' vs 'who am I'. It also positions itself as the entry point ('front door').

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 implies this is the first tool to consult and differentiates from whoami, but does not explicitly state when to use it over other siblings like about or projects. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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