primitives_get_getting_started

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose ('Get...') without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what format the guide is returned in, or any potential limitations. This lacks substantive behavioral information.

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, concise sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary wordiness or redundancy.

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 provides enough context to understand that this tool retrieves the getting started guide. It could benefit from explicitly describing the return format or read-only nature, but it is adequate for a zero-parameter getter.

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 takes zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object. The description does not need to explain parameters, and with 0 params the baseline is 4, which 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('official getting started guide for Radix primitives'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like themes_get_getting_started and primitives_get_component_documentation. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 usage: use this tool when you need the getting started guide for Radix primitives. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and sibling set make the context clear.

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