get_build_guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the content list clarifies what the guide covers, but it doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or describe the output format. This leaves some behavior unspecified.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose and content, the second gives usage guidance. There is no wasted wording, and it is well-structured with front-loaded information.

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 guide-retrieval tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the guide contains and when to read it. It might have explicitly mentioned that it does not modify pages, but that is reasonably implied by 'Get'.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter info because none are needed.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'BuilderX page authoring guide', then lists the covered topics. This clearly distinguishes it from other tools like get_intake_guide and action-oriented siblings (build_page, update_page).

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Read this before building or heavily editing a page.' This is strong usage guidance. However, it does not mention any when-not cases or alternatives, so it misses the full 'vs alternatives' component.

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