get_workflow_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the guide is 'distilled from that subject's SideFX manual' and includes what to build, order, mistakes, and help pages, giving a sense of the content. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., network calls, caching) or the exact return structure, but since it's a read-only retrieval tool, this is minimal. It adds context about the source and content, which is useful beyond what a schema would provide.

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 well-structured: it starts with a concise purpose, then usage triggers, then a note about the source, and finally parameter definitions. It is reasonably concise given the need to explain both usage and parameters. It front-loads the key purpose and usage. Minor redundancy: 'which mistakes it exists to prevent' could be more concise, but it's not bloated.

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 purpose (retrieving a guide), the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly: what it returns (guide content), when to use it, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit detail on the output format, but since there is no output schema, the agent can infer that it returns text. It is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, meaning the description must fully document the parameters. It does so effectively: it explains 'topic' with a list of allowed values and aliases, and 'description' as 'What you are trying to build, for the guide's framing.' This goes beyond the schema, which only has names and types, by providing semantic meaning and examples.

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 what the tool does: it retrieves a 'written guide' for a subject, covering what to build, order, mistakes to avoid, and help pages. It specifies the resource (server's written guide) and the purpose (to guide building). It is distinct from siblings like 'search_help' or 'get_help_page' by focusing on workflow guides rather than general help docs.

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 explicit 'when to use' guidance: 'Call this BEFORE designing a setup you have not built this session, and again the moment two attempts at the same symptom have failed.' It clearly states the triggers for calling this tool, which distinguishes it from alternatives. It also implies it should be used proactively in the design process.

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