get_guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful shape information about the returned tree (page_id, name, url, box names), but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure modes for an unknown guide_id. It adds some value beyond annotations without being rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The output shape is stated first and the routing hint is appended last where it is most useful, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not restate return values, and it still sketches the outline structure helpfully. Combined with annotations covering the read-only nature, the definition is nearly complete; only the provenance of guide_id remains unaddressed.

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 0%, so the schema supplies no meaning for guide_id and the description does not explain its format or where to obtain it (e.g., via search_guides). The single identifier is largely self-explanatory in context, which keeps this from being a real failure, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Get a guide's metadata and its full page outline') and then enumerates exactly what the outline contains: a tree of pages with page_id, name, url, and box names. This is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_guide_content and search_guides without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent to the closest alternative: 'Use get_guide_content with a page_id to read a page.' That resolves the most likely confusion (metadata/outline vs. page body). It does not, however, say when to prefer this over search_guides or list_subjects, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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