get_tutorial_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and provides transparency on detection strategies (frontmatter, inline links, numeric prefixes) and return structure (chain array with fields and strategy). 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and immediately describe behavior. Every word 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?

Complete for a tool with two simple string params and no output schema: explains return structure and detection strategies. Lacks details on repo format or error handling, but overall adequate given low complexity.

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 description provides no elaboration on repo or section_id beyond context. repo is untyped as a string; section_id's format or expected values are not hinted. The description should compensate for the sparse schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'reconstruct' and the resource 'ordered tutorial chain' starting from a section_id, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_section or get_toc.

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?

While no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives is given, the description details how the chain is built (frontmatter, links, filenames), implying its use for tutorial navigation. Could be improved by specifying when to prefer this over get_section_path or get_related_sections.

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