get_best_practice_guide

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 mentions that the tool retrieves 'complete' guides with 'all sections and content', which adds useful context about output comprehensiveness. However, it lacks details on potential limitations like response size, error handling, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage and emphasizing importance, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the recommendation more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and the importance of consulting guides, but lacks details on output format or error cases, which could enhance completeness for a tool without annotations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'guideName' with its enum values. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of when to choose specific guides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a complete best practice and how-to guide') and resources ('all sections and content'), and explicitly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying when to use it for SFCC features like cartridges, ISML templates, etc., rather than just listing or searching.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('when implementing specific SFCC features') and includes a strong recommendation ('Always consult the relevant guide before writing code'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools that might list or search guides without the same emphasis on pre-implementation consultation.

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