guide

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

Without annotations, the description must bear the full burden, but it only discloses behavior for no arguments ('No args → index'). It does not explain what happens with a topic argument, error handling, or other behavioral traits.

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 extremely concise (6 words), but this brevity sacrifices necessary information. It is not a model of efficient clarity because it omits critical context about the tool's operation.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is marginally adequate. However, it lacks details about the topic parameter and error conditions, making it less complete than ideal.

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 input schema has one undocumented parameter (0% coverage). The description adds meaning by indicating that omitting the argument yields an index, but it does not explain the purpose or expected value of the 'topic' parameter itself.

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 identifies the resource as 'Usage guides' and hints at behavior with 'No args → index', but it does not explicitly state that providing a 'topic' argument retrieves a specific guide. This leaves room for interpretation.

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 its siblings (e.g., claim, export, figure). The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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