tool_get_style_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return shape ({ok, path, guide} vs {ok, message}), enumerates the guide's contents, and covers the missing-case failure mode. It is a non-destructive read, so no further safety disclosure is warranted; only minor gaps remain.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by useful elaboration on contents and the pairing instruction. The detail is dense but earns its place; slight verbosity in the contents enumeration.

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?

With no input params and no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining both the success and failure return shapes plus when to call it. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate. Baseline 4 per the scoring rules for 0-param tools.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('CSDN writing style guide'), then clarifies it is 'the MCP's own prompt'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like tool_write_blog and tool_generate_blog_scaffold.

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?

Explicitly states the temporal constraint: 'Call this BEFORE generate_blog_scaffold / write_blog so content matches the author's style.' It names the exact siblings it precedes, giving unambiguous ordering guidance.

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