guide

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Returns static guidance only', which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation. It also clarifies that it does not reflect the daemon's live state, preventing a likely misconception. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences carry the full purpose, usage guidance, and limitation without redundancy. Key information is front-loaded: what the tool does, when to call it, and what it does not provide. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the simple two-parameter schema with an enum, full schema coverage, an output schema, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool explains, when to call it, how to narrow the topic, and how it differs from status, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining that topic 'narrows it to one primitive with when to use each of its tools', which clarifies the purpose of the enum beyond its literal value list. The agent parameter is also given contextual significance in the schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('what Tirith is for and how to work with it'), covering the working loop, reply rules, and tool selection. It clearly differentiates itself from status by noting it returns static guidance only, and from the broader sibling tools by positioning itself as the meta-orientation tool.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Call it first in a session, or when unsure which tool fits'. It also explains how to narrow via topic and gives an explicit exclusion: for live daemon state, use status. This leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke this tool versus alternatives.

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