Get interview guide

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned contents: the interview/build guide, the non-negotiable closed-system rule §0, and the user's resumable drafts. This goes beyond the bare read-only hint without contradicting it.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler. The imperative 'START HERE' is front-loaded, followed by a compact list of what the tool returns. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description is fully sufficient. It states what the tool returns, its ordering role, and a notable content element (§0). No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 covers 100% of the (empty) parameter set. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Baseline for no parameters is 4, which is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool's function: returning the interview/build guide and the user's resumable drafts. The 'START HERE' directive distinguishes it as the session entry point among siblings like get_timeline or list_projects, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 this tool: 'START HERE in any Alto session.' This gives strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, but the entry-point framing makes the usage context clear.

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