research_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: the API default profile is 'full,' 'lite' returns compact guidance, and profiles can be inherited from an existing task. It does not state whether this is purely read-only, whether it has side effects, or anything about auth, which a no-annotation tool would ideally cover.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the key parameter and the alternative tool. No filler, though the opening stage list is terse to the point of being cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required. The stage parameter is only implied by a slash-separated list rather than defined, and 'language' has no semantics anywhere. Adequate for a 3-param tool but with visible 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 0%, so the description must compensate across three params. It partially does: 'profile' gets real semantics (explicit vs API default, lite = compact), and 'stage' is enumerated via the stage list. 'language' is never mentioned in the description or schema, leaving one parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read methodology/guidance for named research stages (brief/collect/analyze/draft/review/revise/final) and explicitly scopes it as 'without a task.' The 'without a task' clause cleanly separates it from task-bound siblings like research_status and research_start, though the phrase 'methods' is jargon-y and takes a moment to parse.

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?

Gives a clear when-not: for an existing task, use research_status to inherit its saved profile. Also tells the agent to pass the profile explicitly and notes the API default of 'full.' Missing explicit guidance versus research_review, research_check_draft, and research_check_reviewer, but the task-bound vs task-free split is well covered.

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