get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' signals a non-mutating operation and 'in full' implies complete content is returned, but it says nothing about access requirements (private vs. public guides), behavior on an unknown id, or response shape.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic contract but leaves gaps an agent would care about: error behavior on a missing/inaccessible id and whether the returned 'full' guide includes items versus metadata only.

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 coverage is 0% — the single guide_id parameter is documented only as an integer titled 'Guide Id'. The description repeats 'by id' without adding format, source (where to obtain the id), or validity constraints, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one guide) with a clear scope qualifier ('in full by id'), so the agent can tell it apart from list-style tools like list_my_guides. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_my_guide_items, which plausibly returns related data for the same guide.

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?

'In full by id' implies the tool is for fetching a single complete guide when an id is already known, contrasted implicitly with listing tools. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no mention of when to prefer get_my_guide_items or list_my_guides instead.

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