stage_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool returns a guide, with no mention of side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is read-only. For a mutation-unsafe tool, this is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the allowed stage values. Every element is necessary and there is no extraneous information.

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 tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers only the primary parameter. It does not explain the role of optional parameters or the structure of the returned guide, though the output schema may mitigate the latter. Overall, it is adequate but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only partially describes the required 'stage' parameter by listing valid values, but completely ignores 'brief_type', 'party_side', and 'dispute_known'. This leaves most parameters undocumented.

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 specifies the tool returns a step-by-step algorithm guide (specification) for a given stage, with valid stages listed (facts, claims, issues, etc.). This provides a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on searches, verification, or other actions.

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?

Usage is implied by listing stages, but no explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description lacks context for the optional parameters, leaving the agent to infer usage from the stage list alone.

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