aism_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the word 'deployed', hinting the guide reflects the live site's state rather than generic docs—useful but thin; nothing about size, format, or whether the guide varies per site/version.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key information up front. It is efficient rather than padded; the only critique is that brevity here edges toward thinness.

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?

Low-complexity single-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description needn't explain returns. However, it omits what the guide covers and whether output differs per site, leaving the agent with a minimal picture of what it will get back.

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 site parameter is fully documented in the schema (name from aism_sites, omit for default). The description contributes nothing beyond that, which is acceptable at this coverage level but earns only the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: read the AI Site Manager usage guide for a deployed site. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like aism_schema (which presumably returns schema info) or aism_sites, though the description never names those alternatives to sharpen the distinction.

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 indication of when to reach for this tool versus aism_schema, aism_discover, or aism_sites. An agent must infer that a 'usage guide' is documentation-reading, and there is no guidance about prerequisites or typical triggering situations.

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