get_usage_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by noting the tool is lightweight and provides strategic guidance without analysis overhead, clarifying it doesn't perform heavy analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state the absence of side effects or mention authentication needs, which is less critical for a read-only guidance 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?

The description uses a structured format with short labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, PERFORMANCE, WORKFLOW) that convey key information efficiently. While slightly longer than the simplest examples, every section adds relevant context and the content is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage timing, performance, and workflow. It also positions itself within the sibling tool set as the entry point for guidance, making it sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, making schema description coverage trivially 100%. The description avoids parameter details appropriately, and a baseline of 4 is warranted for zero-parameter tools. No additional parameter meaning is needed.

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 identifies the tool as providing comprehensive guidance on using code analysis tools, focusing on instructions, best practices, and workflow recommendations. This distinct purpose differentiates it from sibling analysis tools that perform actual code analysis rather than offering meta-guidance.

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?

Explicitly states to call this FIRST when needing guidance on tool selection, sequencing, or best practices, and recommends using it before complex analysis tasks. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with the analysis siblings.

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