learn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('Load a detailed guide') but does not explicitly state it has no side effects or describe the output format. It does add useful behavioral details about form keying ('form-*') and indexing via learn('interaction-forms'), which goes beyond a bare description.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action. The long list of areas is necessary and not fluff. It is slightly dense, but every sentence earns its place; no redundant or irrelevant wording.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers the argument and usage. It does not describe the return guide structure, but output schema likely handles that. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool appropriately.

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 input schema provides only a bare 'area' string with 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by enumerating all valid areas (deciding-what-to-establish, interaction-forms, etc.) and explaining how to discover forms dynamically. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 loads a detailed guide for one area or the recipe for one interaction Form, using specific verbs ('load') and resources ('guide', 'recipe'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling action tools by being a meta/educational tool, and enumerates exact area names.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to obtain guides or recipes) and gives specific guidance for accessing interaction forms via the keying convention and the indexing command. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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