get_design_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It clearly indicates a non-mutating fetch operation ('Fetch'), discloses the guide's internal contents (assess-first workflow, quality floor, CSP constraints), and explains how the tool should influence subsequent behavior. There is no hidden side effect or ambiguous mutation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds the critical usage precondition, a summary of the guide's contents, and an explicit workflow. Every sentence contributes actionable information and none is filler or redundant with the schema.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation fetcher, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns conceptually, when to invoke it, what constraints it reveals, and how to apply its output to the broader site improvement workflow.

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 schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meanings. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because the description handles the no-parameter case cleanly without needing to invent semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the Stacktree house design guide for improving a published page.' It clearly identifies the tool as a read operation that supplies design guidance, and it distinguishes its role from sibling tools like update_site or get_site by framing it as the guide that precedes and drives those actions.

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 explicitly states when to call it: 'Call this BEFORE any request to make a page look better, more polished, more professional, or beautiful.' It also tells the agent what the guide contains, including when NOT to restyle, and provides the exact follow-up workflow: get_site → assess → rebuild or elevate → update_site.

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