get_build_guide

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds the useful prerequisite framing ('read this before building'), but says nothing about whether the guide is static or reflects current site state, how large the payload is, or whether it should be re-read per session. Adequate, not 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, both load-bearing: the first defines scope by content type, the second states the triggering condition. The prerequisite instruction is front-loaded after the scope statement with zero filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only documentation fetch with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the guide contains and when to fetch it. Minor residual gap is whether the content is site-specific or generic, but nothing required to select and call the tool is absent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Nothing is missing or misleading on this dimension.

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 the BuilderX page authoring guide') and then enumerates the exact subject matter covered: page shape, grid layout model, styling, breakpoints, forms/data, build workflow. An agent can distinguish this from sibling guide/inspection tools like get_intake_guide or get_page_schema without opening the 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Read this before building or heavily editing a page,' which ties invocation to a concrete task state. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when it is unnecessary (e.g., for light edits), so it is clear context rather than a full decision rule.

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