swebsy_get_builder_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the content is 'static' (deterministic/repeatable) and scoped to component system, theme classes, and conventions. However, it does not disclose the return format, output size, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics, which matters since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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?

A single ~20-word sentence that front-loads the resource ('static Swebsy builder guidance'), adds scoping detail in a parenthetical, and ends with the alignment context. Every word earns its place; there is no boilerplate or repetition.

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 static-doc loader this is nearly complete: invocation is trivial (no inputs), the object is named, and the content scope is enumerated. The remaining gaps — lack of explicit usage guidance and output format/size — are minor given the tool's simplicity, though a size warning would help an agent manage context when loading a likely lengthy guidance document.

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 an empty object, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed. No points are lost for missing parameter detail because none exists.

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 states a specific verb ('Load') and a specific resource ('static Swebsy builder guidance'), and clarifies the content scope with the parenthetical '(component system, theme classes, conventions)'. Among the 32 siblings, none other loads builder guidance, so it is readily differentiated from list_templates, list_blocks, and get_skill.

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 phrase 'that the in-app AI Builder is primed with' implies the intended use — loading the same knowledge the AI Builder uses in order to align with component/theme conventions — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. Usage must be inferred rather than stated.

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