deadbolt_get_integration_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the gating condition (only when operator configuration is blank) and the explicit negative guarantees about not running a server or granting permission are not derivable from the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the precondition is placed last where it is easy to scan. The sentence enumerating return contents is slightly redundant given a dedicated output schema exists, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with a full output schema and rich annotations, the description supplies the pieces structured fields cannot express: the gating condition and the negative guarantees. Only the relationship to the sibling tool is unstated.

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% and the single 'route' parameter carries a full enum with per-value explanations, so the schema does all the work. The description only gestures at 'a supported integration route' without adding syntax or selection guidance, matching the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 ('Get') and a specific resource ('local, read-only DeadBolt setup steps for a supported integration route'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. However, it never contrasts itself with its only sibling deadbolt_check_bundle, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between reading a guide and checking a bundle.

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 closing clause 'Available only when operator configuration is blank' is a concrete precondition that tells the agent when this tool applies, which is more than most definitions offer. It stops short of naming an alternative for the non-blank case, so the routing decision is still partly left to inference.

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