get-styleguide

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful context by specifying the return fields (title, timestamp, HTML body). While it doesn't disclose other behaviors like rate limits or auth requirements, the simple read-only nature makes this adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource first, then lists the return values. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, scope, and return format. The annotation handles safety, and the schema handles parameters, making the description complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with both slug and courseId having descriptions. The description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'Canvas styleguide page for a course', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-page-content or generate-styleguide by naming the specific page type. The return fields are also listed, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving the styleguide page, which gives good context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., comparing with get-page-content or generate-styleguide), so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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