syntropy_get_onboarding_guide

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether the guide is returned as raw markdown text, whether it requires authentication, or how large it is. Calling it 'interactive' is unexplained and slightly misleading for a tool that presumably returns a static document.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is appropriate for a simple fetch tool. The only cost is the dense product naming ('Synproof Syntropy Customer Implementation & Onboarding Skill') that crowds out more useful detail.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), so minimal description may suffice, but with no output schema the description should at least characterize the return value. It names SKILL.md without saying what the agent gets back or how to use it, leaving a meaningful hole.

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?

There are zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4, but the description adds no meaning about the returned artifact to compensate for the absent output schema. It is adequate for a parameterless fetch but does not go beyond the name.

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 names a concrete verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('Customer Implementation & Onboarding Skill (SKILL.md)'), which clearly separates it from the sibling read/verify tools. The purpose is identifiable, though the phrase 'interactive Synproof Syntropy ... Skill' is product jargon that adds little precision.

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?

There is no statement of when an agent should call this versus syntropy_verify, syntropy_list_worlds, or syntropy_get_world_axioms, and no indication of when it is unnecessary. The agent must infer that this is a documentation-fetch step, which is a notable gap given the four sibling tools.

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