Get Best Practices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, including a proprietary data usage restriction and a limit on call frequency, without contradicting any 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 mostly concise with three focused sentences covering purpose, targets, and proprietary notice. The proprietary notice is somewhat lengthy but necessary for compliance; overall the structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 1 required, no output schema) and the presence of comprehensive annotations and schema descriptions, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and adds critical usage constraints, leaving no obvious gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing parameter types and examples; for instance, it does not elaborate on the topic enum values or clarify the libraryId format beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it fetches best practices, patterns, and guidelines for libraries/frameworks, and distinguishes itself from generic reference docs by specifying target content types (best-practices pages, guides, migration docs, performance tips). This differentiates it from sibling tools like gt_get_docs and gt_examples.

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 provides clear context on when to use (for best practices) and includes a proprietary data notice and a limit of 3 calls per question. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, though the sibling list implies alternatives like gt_get_docs and gt_examples.

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