compare_analyze_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'gets guidance,' which is a minimal read behavior. It does not describe what the guidance consists of, whether it is static or dynamic, or any side effects. The description lacks transparency about the tool's actual behavior beyond its basic function.

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, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without any superfluous words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description states its purpose but does not elaborate on the form or content of the returned guidance, nor does it provide context about how the guidance relates to the broader workflow. It is minimally complete for a simple guidance tool but lacks depth.

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 is empty, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not add any parameter information, but none is needed since there are no parameters. Baseline score 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 tool's purpose: to get guidance for the COMPARE/ANALYZE phase, specifically for evaluating approaches. The verb 'get' and resource 'guidance' are specific, and the phase name distinguishes it from sibling guidance tools for other phases (e.g., audit, iterate, test).

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 implies the tool should be used during the COMPARE/ANALYZE phase by naming that phase, but it does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives among the sibling guidance tools. Usage guidance is implicit but not explicit.

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