get_available_best_practice_guides

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 describes the tool's behavior as retrieving a list for discovery purposes, which is clear. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, pagination, rate limits, or error handling. For a read-only tool with no annotations, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. There is no wasted text.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and when to use it. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of guide titles or metadata), but this is a minor gap.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 specific action ('Get a list') and resource ('all available SFCC best practice and how-to guides'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_best_practice_guide (which retrieves a specific guide) and search_best_practices (which searches within guides). It explicitly mentions the scope of resources (cartridge creation, hooks, controllers, custom endpoints).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this first to discover what guidance is available before implementing any SFCC features') and its purpose ('Essential for understanding what best practice resources exist'). It distinguishes it from siblings by implying this is for discovery rather than retrieval or search of specific content.

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