get_authoring_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return value (notation, styles, group kinds, example) but does not disclose any side effects, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond being a read-only documentation tool.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence plus the 'No arguments' note. It front-loads 'Read this first' to establish priority. Every part is necessary and adds value.

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?

Given zero parameters, no output schema, and a clear purpose as an introductory guide, the description fully equips an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly. The sibling list reinforces its role as a starting point.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description explicitly confirms 'No arguments'. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters to document, the description adds sufficient clarity.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'the complete notation for describing an IT architecture', along with styles, group kinds, and a worked example. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_styles or list_node_types which likely return subsets.

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 tool is explicitly labeled 'Read this first', indicating it should be used before other tools. It also states 'No arguments' for simplicity. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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