get_guidance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Given zero annotations, the description should clarify safety profile (read-only vs capable of side effects), whether it consumes significant resources, or whether it makes external calls. The tool name suggests a read operation (getting guidance), but the description doesn't confirm whether invoking it could trigger state changes or have side effects on the workflow.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with zero waste. It's efficiently written and front-loaded. However, given the critical ambiguities around 'intelligent guidance,' a bit more elaboration on what the guidance constitutes would have been earned rather than verbosity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must do more to explain what the tool returns and its behavioral contract. The phrase 'intelligent guidance' is too vague to tell an agent what to expect or how to interpret the result. Given the tool's AI-flavored nature, more detail on guidance categories or response format would substantially improve usability.

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 parameters (executionId, stepId) are documented in the schema with their semantic meaning. The stepId explicitly states 'optional, uses current step if not provided' which is helpful. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description 'Get intelligent guidance for the current workflow step' has a clear verb+resource (get guidance for step) and implies an AI-assisted feature distinct from siblings. However, the term 'intelligent guidance' is vague - it doesn't specify what kind of guidance (explanations, suggestions, errors, next actions) or what output format. It's adequate but doesn't sharply define the deliverable.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't explain how this differs from sibling tools like get_execution_metrics, get_workflow, or analyze_code, nor when a user would prefer guidance over querying these other capabilities. Siblings like analyze_code and semantic_search could overlap in providing intelligent assistance, but no differentiation is offered.

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