guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, local, side-effect-free read. The description adds that the content is prescriptive rules/how-to rather than data, which is mild extra context. It doesn't describe the shape or breadth of the returned guidance, but the output schema covers return values, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence with the purpose front-loaded followed by the enumerated stages. It is tight and wastes little, though restating the enum values is somewhat redundant with the schema. Efficient overall.

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 annotations covering safety and an output schema defining the return, the main missing piece is usage context — when in the workflow to consult this guide relative to the sibling action tools. For a meta/reference tool in a large workflow suite, that gap keeps it from being complete.

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%, but the single parameter carries an enum of nine values that the description reproduces verbatim. It confirms the valid topics but adds no per-topic meaning (e.g., what 'duplicates' or 'ontology' guidance contains). It partially compensates for the coverage gap by surfacing the options but adds nothing beyond the enum itself.

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 conveys that this is a reference/guidance tool that returns rules and how-to material scoped to a named stage, and it enumerates those stages (workflow, question, screening, etc.). However, the verb is nominal ('Rules and how-to for a stage') rather than an explicit action, so the agent must infer that the tool retrieves documentation. It is understandable but not sharply stated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many action siblings (validate_question, start_search, set_screening_criteria, etc.). It never says 'call this first to learn how a stage works' or gives any precondition or workflow context. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the topic enum.

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