get_guide

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the topical scope of the guide but does not say what form the guide takes, how long it is, or whether it should be consulted before analysis.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter guide tool, even though the comma-separated content list is dense.

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 zero-parameter guide, the description identifies the topics covered but omits the return format and any indication of when it should be used relative to the analysis tools. With no output schema, that leaves the agent with an incomplete picture of the tool's role.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the content domains: workflow, physics scope, privacy, and interpretation limits. This makes clear it is a documentation/meta tool rather than a data operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_catalog or get_results.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative tool guidance. The content list only weakly implies that an agent should call it when it needs workflow or interpretation context, leaving the trigger to inference.

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