get_anthropic_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It clearly states the tool returns markdown content and is for reference material. It could be more explicit about side effects (likely none, as it's read-only), but the usage context strongly implies no destructive actions.

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 paragraphs but each earns its place: first gives purpose and proactive use instruction, second lists conditions, third differentiates sibling. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action.

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 zero parameters and a clear output (markdown content), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, differentiation, and return format. No gaps remain.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage by default), so the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds no param info because none exist; the description's value lies elsewhere. A baseline of 4 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves Anthropic's official Prompting Guide, with specific use cases like writing/optimizing prompts for Claude models. It clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes from sibling tool get_google_guide.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios (prompt writing for Claude, structuring XML tags, etc.) and even states 'Prefer this over get_google_guide when targeting Claude/Anthropic models,' offering clear guidance on tool selection.

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