mma_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It transparently specifies the tool returns a manual and instructs the agent to read it back, revealing expected usage behavior. It doesn't discuss side effects or error handling, but for a read-only guide, that's adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the critical 'ALWAYS call this first' instruction, then a concise explanation of what it returns and how to proceed. No unnecessary details, every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (no params) and has an output schema. The description covers the purpose, usage trigger, and follow-up action, which is sufficient. It doesn't detail the output schema contents, but the output schema is available to the agent, so completeness is high.

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, so the schema provides no details. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and per the rubric, 0 params baselines at 4. The description is irrelevant to parameters but correctly omits them.

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 'live agent operator manual' and explicitly instructs to call it first when a user connects or asks about MeetMyAgent. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as an onboarding/reference tool, while siblings handle search, listings, and other 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?

It provides an explicit trigger condition ('ALWAYS call this first when a user connects or asks what MeetMyAgent is') and subsequent guidance ('Read it back to the user, then help them list or find something'), which implies when to use other tools. This is direct and actionable.

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