ebms_guide

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does carry some of the safety burden by stating 'Read-only' and by explaining the three invocation modes (no args, skill, file). It does not, however, disclose failure modes, behavior when both parameters are supplied, or whether the returned skill/file content has any special structure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by use conditions and invocation modes. Slightly dense but no wasted words. Information is logically ordered.

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 guidance tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to call, and invocation modes. It leaves gaps around what 'skill loaded' means, what the list output looks like, and how this relates to specific sibling tools like ebms_get or ebms_write.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that skill and file each correspond to a reference mode but adds no additional format or interaction semantics beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as the EBMS procedures/guide: it explains sales/purchase orders, stock, products, tasks, and MRP. It differentiates by stating it returns skills/files and is read-only, unlike the operational sibling tools. However, the core verb is 'call it' rather than a domain verb, so it is clear without being maximally explicit.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Call it before any task beyond a single read' and a conditional exception when 'the matching skill is already loaded.' It does not name the sibling tools directly or specify how to determine whether a skill is loaded, so it falls short of a 5.

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