Get Guidelines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the name — no scoping behavior, no indication of what is returned or how guides relate to artboards/coordinate systems, which the parameter schema hints at but the description never connects.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency. The one sentence is too thin to earn its place as a tool description.

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?

This is a low-complexity read tool, so the bar is not high, and annotations plus a well-documented single parameter cover most structural needs. However, the description leaves the fundamental question — what data about which guides, and in what coordinate context — unanswered, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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% and the single optional coordinate_system enum is documented in detail, including auto-detection rules and a cross-reference to get_document_info. With the schema carrying the full burden, the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes no additional parameter meaning.

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?

"Get guide information" essentially restates the tool name and title. It never clarifies what a "guide" is in this context (Illustrator ruler/guide objects vs. style/brand guidelines), leaving the agent to infer from siblings like get_document_info. The verb is specific but the resource is ambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as get_document_info, get_document_structure, or get_artboards. Nothing tells the agent under what circumstances this tool is the right call.

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