clo_control_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's content area but does not state whether it returns info, is read-only, performs any verification actions, or has side effects—leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond its name and vague 'routing guide' label.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the tool's central purpose. It includes only the necessary caveat about scope ('absent from the API') and content highlights (desktop prerequisites, verification). The phrase 'routing guide' is a bit vague but does not add filler.

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 zero-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description gives key context about why the guide exists and what topics it addresses. It does not elaborate on what 'verification' means or what format the guide takes, but for a simple informational tool this is roughly adequate.

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 schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for parameter documentation.

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 states it is a 'routing guide for CLO functions absent from the API, including desktop prerequisites and verification,' which identifies a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from API-related siblings (e.g., clo_api_search, clo_api_doc) by targeting functions unavailable in the API, though 'routing guide' is not as precise as a plain verb like 'lists' or 'explains'.

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 this tool should be used when a CLO function is not available in the API and when desktop prerequisites or verification are relevant. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for choosing it over similar guides, leaving some inference required.

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