get_my_style_guide

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so they convey little about output. The description adds real behavioral content: the fallback rule that when fewer than 2 writings of a kind exist, it returns common habits plus the kind's basics. This conditional behavior is not in the annotations or schema and directly shapes the agent's expectations.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core purpose before the conditional fallback detail. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover idempotency. The description supplies purpose, timing, and the important fallback branch, leaving only minor gaps such as how results relate to analyze_my_style.

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%, so both kind and style are already documented (including the note that kind is an id/name and style is normally left empty). The description clarifies that supplying kind selects the per-kind guide, adding marginal meaning over the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource: reading one's own style guide (문체 안내서), and specifies the branching behavior when a kind is supplied. It is clearly distinguishable from list/analyze siblings by being a retrieval-of-a-curated-guide tool. It stops short of a full 5 because it never explicitly names which sibling it complements or replaces (e.g. analyze_my_style).

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 opening phrase '글을 쓰기 전에 읽는' establishes a clear usage moment (before writing), which is genuine context. However there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives (check_draft, analyze_my_style), so the routing decision is left implicit.

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