get_agent_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response format is, how errors are handled (e.g., unsupported agent), or any side effects. The listing of supported agents adds minimal behavioral context, but essential traits remain undisclosed.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. The supported agents list is useful but duplicates the schema's parameter description. While efficient, it could have been slightly shorter by omitting the redundant list, but overall it is well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and supported inputs. However, it lacks information about the response structure, behavior for unsupported agents, and the implication of the optional parameter. These gaps could lead to incorrect usage or assumptions.

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% – the schema already describes the 'agent' parameter with the same list of supported agents. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning (e.g., default behavior when the parameter is omitted, case sensitivity, or format). Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'agent-specific best practices and configuration guidance', making the purpose specific. It also enumerates supported agents, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_industry_patterns' or 'generate_production_code', though the resource is distinct enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The only contextual hint is the list of supported agents, which implies a selection criterion but does not explain why one would choose this over related tools.

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