get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the two return modes: with a section it returns that topic's full write-up, without one it returns all topic ids and titles. The read-only nature is implied by "读" and by the absence of any mutation language. It does not explicitly promise no side effects or describe output size, which keeps it at 4.

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 purpose and the when-to-use rule come first, followed by the topic enumeration; every clause maps to a real section id or a real usage rule. The enumeration is long but each item is load-bearing, so nothing is padding. Slightly dense in a single paragraph.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool this is complete: it explains what the tool returns in both modes, why it exists relative to sibling tool descriptions, and what each section id covers. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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% and the enum already lists the nine ids, but the description goes further by glossing each id in Chinese (document-model 文档模型, actions 动作清单, deck-content 套图内容, etc.), which genuinely helps an agent pick the right topic. The omit-behavior is also restated in prose.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("按主题读一份使用指南") and enumerates exactly what knowledge lives in the guide: document model, actions, content fields, HTML, templates, checks, render/export. Among siblings like apply_actions or render_document, an agent can immediately tell this is the read-only documentation lookup tool rather than an execution tool.

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: "要动手写参数之前，先来这里读对应主题的完整写法" — read this before composing parameters, because sibling tool descriptions only say what they do. It also states the fallback behavior (omit section to list all topics). It stops short of naming when not to use it, so 4 rather than 5.

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