get_style_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool provides 'advice and tips,' implying a read-only, informational function, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or returns structured data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get styling advice and tips for creating effective fashion recommendations.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at return values, but it doesn't, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (category, fashion_season, occasion). The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing usage examples. Since the schema already documents parameters well, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get styling advice and tips for creating effective fashion recommendations.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'styling advice and tips,' making the function understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_complete_the_look' or 'get_visually_similar,' which likely offer different types of fashion-related outputs, so it misses full distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specify contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for general advice versus specific outfit generation. Without any usage context, the agent lacks direction on tool selection.

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