get_guidance

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does add real behavioral detail: type=experiments 'lists active/completed experiments and how to enable them,' and comparisons are returned for specific constructs. But it doesn't disclose output format, default behavior with no arguments, or side effects (if any), leaving some behavior implicit.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the main action and categories. Every phrase contributes — examples are embedded parenthetically rather than expanding length, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description captures the core purpose and one parameter nuance, and schema covers defaults and enum values. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps: no indication of what a response looks like, how 'summary' vs 'full' affects results, or what happens when invoked with no parameters. These gaps are not fatal because the tool is a simple guidance lookup, but they prevent a higher score.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the 'experiments' type (returns status plus enablement instructions) and giving tangible examples for 'comparison' (dependency vs dependencies). This enriches parameter meaning beyond enum labels.

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 clear verb ('Get') and enumerates distinct guidance domains: best practices, block comparisons, DRY patterns, and experiment status, with an inlined example (dependency vs dependencies). This makes the tool's content scope clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling documentation/reference tools like search_docs or function_reference.

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 description implies the right context — Terragrunt IaC organization guidance — and gives a concrete invocation hint for type=experiments. However, it never states when not to use this tool or points to alternatives among the siblings, so the guidance is contextful but lacks explicit exclusions.

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