read_full_guide

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly discloses truncation behavior for large guides (>20k chars) and what is returned (full content or table of contents if truncated). No contradictions.

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?

Description is compact (8 lines) yet covers use cases, warnings, arguments, and returns. Structured with clear headings (Use this tool when:, Warning:, Args:, Returns:) making it easy to scan.

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 one simple parameter and an output schema (implied), the description covers key behavioral aspects (truncation, return format). It is complete enough for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0% for descriptions, but the description adds meaning for the sole parameter 'guide_id' with an example ('python/fastapi-production'), which provides clear guidance beyond the schema's type definition.

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 'Get the complete content of a guide.' Verb+resource is specific. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_best_practices, the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from search functionality.

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 lists when to use (full context, short guide, implementing from scratch) and when not to (large guides, use consult_guide_for_task for sections). Provides clear context and alternatives.

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