get_integration_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates this is a retrieval of code (no mutation implied), but does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 sentences plus an args line: concise and to the point. No wasteful words. Could benefit from structured formatting, but overall efficient.

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 one optional parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter values. It does not need to explain return values since output schema exists. Completeness is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'tier' parameter. The description adds meaning by listing the allowed values: 'discovery', 'analysis', 'speed', or 'complete'. This helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema's type-only specification.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Get Solidity code to integrate Pythia into a smart contract.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like get_contracts or get_events_guide.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or differentiation from sibling tools like get_contracts or get_events_guide.

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