Get AK how-to guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format (e.g., whether it returns plain text or JSON). The description only states what the tool contains, not its behavioral traits.

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: first defines the tool content, second lists available topics. Every sentence is necessary and no words are wasted. It is front-loaded with the core definition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 simple guide-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool provides and enumerates available topics. It lacks detail about the output format (structure of the returned guide), but this is a minor gap given the tool's straightforward purpose.

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%—the single 'topic' parameter has an enum with descriptions. The description adds value by listing the topic values in prose, reinforcing the enum. However, it does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 provides step-by-step recipes with skeleton code, Makefile.mk steps, and wiring for common AK tasks. It lists 10 specific topics, making the purpose and scope unambiguous. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_ak_docs or get_ak_api.

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 implies usage when a step-by-step guide is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_ak_docs or get_ak_api. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned; usage context is only implied by the topic list.

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