get_usage_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns practical examples and workflows, supports topic filtering, and omitting topic returns the full guide. This sufficiently conveys the tool's read-only nature and content structure, though it does not detail output format or response size.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then topics. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy or fluff, making it concise and well-structured.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage timing, available topics, and what the return contains. It is complete enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the optional 'topic' parameter. The description reiterates the valid topics and adds the behavior of omitting the topic to get the full guide, but this does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('comprehensive usage guide for project-graph') and its content ('examples and best practices'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the entry point for codebase analysis, navigation, or auditing.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Call this FIRST when planning how to analyze, navigate, or audit a codebase.' This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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