get_authoring_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 mentions the tool provides guidance but does not describe behavioral traits such as whether the data is static or dynamic, any freshness guarantees, or if there are any limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no redundant information, and it is front-loaded with the core function. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could hint at the return format. It does not mention the output type, which is a gap. However, the tool is simple with one parameter, so the description is largely complete for the use case but could be improved.

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 description coverage is 100% with the topic parameter's enum description already explaining the values. The tool description echoes these without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not excel.

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: 'Get guidance for creating and modifying Logic Apps workflows.' It specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_workflow_definition or get_troubleshooting_guide by focusing on authoring guidance across three specific subtopics.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Call this when helping users build workflows, understand connector patterns, or set up deployment pipelines.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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