get_tutorial_path

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

readOnlyHint already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds real value beyond it: the three detected conventions, the returned chain[] shape with strategy, and the explicit failure mode that unrecognized wiring yields a short chain. No contradictions.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action and mechanism, then the return and limitation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully specifies the return payload (chain[] of section_id/doc_path/title plus strategy) and the short-chain limitation. The only gap is the undocumented repo parameter, which is minor for this 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 coverage is 50%: section_id is richly documented (including anchor/ambiguity behavior) while repo has no schema description. The description adds only that section_id is the traversal start point and says nothing about repo, so it neither fully compensates nor is unnecessary.

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 (reconstruct) and resource (ordered tutorial chain) plus the starting point, and enumerates the exact detection strategies. An agent can distinguish this from path/toc siblings like get_section_path or get_toc_tree without opening the 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?

Clearly frames when the tool applies: it follows only three conventions and returns a short chain for any other wiring, which tells the agent when results will be incomplete. It stops short of naming alternative tools for non-conventional tutorials, so it is not a 5.

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