slua_get_guidance

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side effects are covered. The description adds a meaningful trait: content is source-backed, so the agent can trust the returned notes. It says nothing about invalid-topic behavior or the response shape, so it only adds modest value beyond the annotations.

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?

It is one tightly packed sentence with no filler, and it leads with the verb and the resource. That said, its brevity comes at the cost of the missing guidance; it is concise but slightly under-specified.

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?

Because there is an output schema, return values need no explanation. The remaining needs are valid topic values and the distinction from the sibling guidance tools. Neither is covered, but the tool's surface is small, so these are moderate rather than severe gaps.

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 documents the single 'topic' parameter at 0% description coverage: no enum, no description, no examples. The description only echoes 'by topic' and does not list valid topic values, say whether topics are free-form strings, or note the 'all' default. The agent is left to guess what to pass.

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 and resource: read source-backed pitfalls and LSL-to-SLua migration notes, scoped by topic. That separates it from the reference/lookup/compile tools in the sibling list. The gap is that it does not say how it differs from lsl_get_guidance or slua_migration_guidance, which sound like they serve the same purpose.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus lsl_get_guidance, slua_migration_guidance, or slua_search_reference, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is the phrase 'by topic,' which narrows how to call the tool but not why or when to choose it.

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