lsl_get_guidance

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

The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description need not repeat safety traits. It adds that the notes are "source-backed" and cover pitfalls plus LSL-to-SLua migration, but does not disclose whether a topic miss returns all notes or how topics are matched.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It efficiently states the content type and the topical scope.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and content. It remains incomplete because topic semantics are vague and it does not help the agent choose among several closely named sibling guidance and migration tools.

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 schema has one optional topic parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says "by topic," giving the parameter meaning but not valid topic values, default behavior, or how an agent should choose a topic.

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 states a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("source-backed pitfalls and LSL-to-SLua migration notes") with scope "by topic." It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not distinguish itself from near siblings such as lsl_migration_guidance or slua_get_guidance.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or condition for selecting this tool over lsl_migration_guidance, slua_get_guidance, or the search/reference tools. The phrase "by topic" implies topical retrieval, but the agent is left to infer usage from the name and description.

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