asc_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It accurately describes the output (a playbook), notes that manual steps are flagged inline, and even mentions 'Free' to convey cost behavior. While it does not explicitly state side effects, the tool's nature as a read-only guide makes this sufficient.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'START HERE' to immediately convey priority. 'Free' is a short, useful addition. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the simple one-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and even cost. It does not enumerate the topic list (handled by the schema), so it is complete for its simplicity.

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 schema already details the 'topic' parameter ('Which playbook. Omit for the overview + topic list.'). The tool description adds general usage context ('Call with topic') but no additional semantic meaning 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 opens with 'START HERE' and a clear verb+resource: 'Returns the exact end-to-end playbook for an App Store task.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by flagging that it covers manual ASC-website/Xcode steps that no API can do, making it a guide/orientation tool rather than a direct action tool.

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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call with topic to orient before any multi-step flow,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, relying on 'START HERE' to imply its role as the initial entry point.

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