get_tutorial_path

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

With readOnlyHint=true already signaling safety, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact detection mechanisms (frontmatter keys, inline links, numeric prefixes), the return shape, and the fallback behavior for unsupported wiring. This goes beyond what the annotation provides and covers edge-case expectations.

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 three dense sentences with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds mechanism, output, and a caveat—every sentence earns its place.

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 only two scalar string params and no output schema, the description is quite complete: it explains purpose, detection strategy, output shape, and failure behavior. Minor omissions like what a valid repo or section_id looks like are not critical for this narrow read-only tool.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies that section_id is the starting point. The 'repo' parameter is never explained, and section_id format/valid values are left unspecified. The description provides some meaning for one parameter but fails to fully compensate for the absent schema 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 opens with a specific verb ('Reconstruct'), names the resource ('ordered tutorial chain'), and specifies the starting input ('section_id'). It also lists the detection conventions and the output (chain[] plus strategy), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling navigation tools like section_neighbors or get_section_path.

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 gives clear context: it detects three specific conventions and explicitly warns that tutorials wired any other way return a short chain, giving the agent a practical when-to-trust boundary. It does not name alternative sibling tools directly, but the limitation statement effectively communicates when not to rely on this tool.

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