community_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The word 'guide' implies a non-mutating, informational tool, but the description does not explicitly state that it only returns guidance, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or limitations. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool as a guide and lists all relevant audiences. It contains no filler words and is highly scannable.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose and the full range of personas it addresses, and the output schema can explain the return structure. No further context is necessary.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema confirms this. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 identifies the tool as a persona-oriented guide and specifies the target audiences (librarians, RDM, funders, ops, research, teaching). It is distinct from the sibling tools, which are operational actions like exports and searches. However, it lacks a strong action verb, reading more as a noun phrase than a clear verb+resource statement.

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 phrase 'which tools for librarians, RDM, funders, ops, research, teaching' directly implies when to use this tool: when the user identifies with one of those roles and needs tool recommendations. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a guide with no comparable siblings.

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