Get Best Practices

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds significant context: it accesses a proprietary registry licensed under Elastic License 2.0, prohibits enumeration/extraction, and limits usage to 3 calls per question. These are useful behavioral traits beyond annotations.

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 concise: one paragraph covering core function, scope, proprietary notice, and usage limit. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, scope, and constraints (proprietary data, call limits). It could hint at the return format but is otherwise complete for a read-only query tool with good annotations.

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?

Input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra parameter-level detail (e.g., mentions libraryId should come from gt_resolve_library in schema, but description doesn't expand further). With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and description doesn't significantly enhance beyond that.

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?

Clearly states it fetches best practices, patterns, and guidelines for a library/framework. Explicitly distinguishes from generic reference docs by listing target content types (best-practices pages, guides, migration docs, performance tips). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gt_get_docs.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (targeting best-practices, not generic docs) and includes important constraints (proprietary data notice, max 3 calls per question). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios for related tools like gt_examples.

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