get_guideline

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'retrieves', which indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or any other behavioral details. For a simple getter this is a notable gap.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.

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 the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. It conveys the core action but lacks details on return values, not-found behavior, or other context that could be useful. Sibling tools provide some context, but the description itself is sparse.

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 schema covers the only parameter (id) with a description and example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, matching the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'detailed contents by guideline ID', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like list_guidelines or search_design_system, so it misses the top score.

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 usage is implied by the required 'id' parameter—use this when you have a specific guideline ID. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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