Perch modding guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies the tool is informational (a guide), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, returns text, or has no side effects. For a non-mutating guide, this is acceptable but not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('short authoring guide for Perch mods') and then lists the covered topics. The instruction 'Read this first' is terse and actionable. There is no wasted wording.

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 guide tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects an agent needs: what it is, what topics it covers, and its role as an entry point. It does not mention the return format, but for a text guide this is implied and not a critical gap.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. This is appropriate given the empty input schema.

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: it is a short authoring guide for Perch mods, and enumerates the specific topics it covers (package shape, Lua declarations, handlers, scopes, style). This is distinct from sibling tools like perch_vocabulary or perch_examples, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Read this first' gives an explicit usage instruction, indicating this should be the starting point before consulting other Perch-related tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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