get_spring_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation and mentions a configurable detail level, but says nothing about the returned format (markdown/sections), whether content is truncated, latency, or any auth requirements. The one substantive behavioral fact – the character caps per level – lives in the schema, not the 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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the information an agent needs, but as a conciseness measure it wastes nothing.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. With no output schema, however, it should at least sketch what 'contenu' means (e.g. code samples, prose sections, headings), and the French wording is inconsistent with the English sibling/tool naming.

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 both guideId and detail_level are already fully documented including examples and character limits. The description only restates 'niveau de détail configurable' without adding format or syntax detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb (Récupère) and a clear resource (le contenu d'un guide Spring Boot spécifique), plus a differentiating qualifier ('spécifique') that separates it from the listing sibling get_all_spring_guides. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the verb+resource pair is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The word 'spécifique' faintly implies this is for a single known guide rather than browsing, but with siblings like get_all_spring_guides, get_spring_tutorial and search_spring_docs the description never tells the agent which one to pick. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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