guide

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds that the guide is an llms.txt document containing a fit assessment, verdicts, and a build contract, which helps the agent know what kind of static guidance it returns. However, it does not describe return format details beyond naming llms.txt.

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 strong imperative ('Call this FIRST'), but it is a very long, dense single paragraph that enumerates many guide topics. Several clauses, such as specific payment commands and sync flags, are useful for understanding the guide's contents but could be trimmed for tool-selection purposes.

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 zero-parameter, read-only guide tool, the description is complete: it explains when to call it, what the guide covers, the fit-assessment verdicts, and the build contract topics. No output schema exists, so explaining return values is unnecessary.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation, and the schema correctly shows an empty object with additionalProperties false.

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 resource (the guide/llms.txt) and a clear trigger: call first before install, account, or code when building, moving, or assessing an app on Gemmein. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from siblings like search_docs or reference, so sibling differentiation is missing despite strong resource clarity.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: call this FIRST when the human asks to build an app on Gemmein, move an existing app, or check whether an app can use it. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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