get_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a read-only fetch ('Fetch JauMemory usage docs') and that it requires no authentication. While it does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or potential side effects, these are minimally relevant for a documentation retrieval tool, and the description gives enough transparency about its safe, public nature.

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 tightly written in three sentences. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose. The second enumerates all invocation modes efficiently. The third provides usage guidance. No word or clause is wasted, and the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 that there is no output schema and the tool has three optional parameters, the description adequately explains each parameter and the default behavior. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., 'returns markdown guide text'), which would help the agent handle the result. For a simple documentation tool, this is a minor gap, keeping it at the baseline of adequacy.

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 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the behavior with no arguments (returns topic index), providing concrete examples for each parameter (e.g., 'concepts/shortcuts' for topic, coding-assistant for persona), and clarifying that search is a keyword finder. This goes well beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 'Fetch JauMemory usage docs' as a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search and fetch by being the tool for documentation retrieval, and provides distinct modes (index, specific guide, persona chunk, keyword search) that separate it from data-access tools.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: when you don't know how a JauMemory tool works, for cross-session coordination, or user 'how do I' questions. It also notes 'No authentication required — same public posture as search and fetch.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and contextual.

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