preview_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read the guide' framing reinforces the read-only nature and enumerates the guide's contents, but it does not add behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide—no auth needs, side effects, or response-shape caveats.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads what the tool provides, and the second delivers the actionable usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant phrases appear.

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 one-parameter, read-only documentation tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it lists the returned content and states when to call it. A minor gap is that it never explicitly states the response is the guide text itself, though the content enumeration strongly implies 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 description coverage is 100%: the single enum parameter `type` already explains each value (quiz, scorecard, outcome) with concrete meaning. The description adds only the implicit mapping that the chosen type selects which guide to read, which is consistent but not a substantive addition beyond the schema's own explanations.

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 states a specific purpose: an authoring guide containing field schema, question types, scoring rules, themes, common mistakes, and a worked example for a RooQuiz preview type. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming preview_quiz, preview_scorecard, and preview_outcome, so an agent can tell it apart without opening their schemas.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Read the guide for the type you want before calling preview_quiz, preview_scorecard, preview_outcome.' This names the exact alternatives and the condition under which this tool should be invoked, leaving nothing to inference.

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