get_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the full narrative text and mentions the type of content included. It doesn't discuss side effects (none expected for a read operation) or potential errors, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by specific return content and id guidance. No redundant wording or unnecessary 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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, return type, and id source. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by describing the narrative text. It's complete enough for an agent to call correctly, though it could optionally mention the response format.

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% with a detailed id description and examples. The description adds extra semantic guidance by instructing to pass an id from list_guides or search_docs, reinforcing provenance and usage beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full text of a single Pancake API guide section'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_guides (listing) and get_endpoint/get_webhook (specific API/webhook details) by focusing on narrative documentation content.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use: 'Pass an id from list_guides or search_docs' implies a preceding lookup step. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the description of return content (authentication, rate limits, integration flow) signals the appropriate use case compared to endpoint/webhook tools.

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