Get Guide

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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the behavioral burden and it does disclose the dual listing/fetch behavior plus the expectation that the returned text should be followed. It stops short of stating what happens on an unknown or misspelled name (error vs. empty), and says nothing about size or truncation of the returned guide text. An output schema exists, so return-shape detail is not required.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the resource definition and then the two call modes. Every sentence carries information; nothing is redundant or padding.

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-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, this covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly in both modes. The remaining gaps, unknown-name handling and guide text size, are modest but real for an agent that may pass an arbitrary name.

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% and the sole parameter 'name' has no description at all, so the description must compensate. It does so cleanly by defining the null/omitted case (list the guides) versus the supplied case (fetch that guide's text), which is the core semantic an agent needs. It does not address name matching rules such as exactness or case sensitivity.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one of Task Orchard's guides') and adds a one-clause gloss of what a guide is: step-by-step instructions for a job. That is enough for an agent to know exactly what it gets back without opening any schema.

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 invocation rules: 'Call with no name to list the guides. Call with a name to get its text, then follow it.' The conditional mode selection (read-only listing vs. fetching one item) is stated outright rather than left to inference, and there are no sibling tools to route against.

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