get_intake_guide

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

With no annotations provided, the description deserves credit for outlining the workflow: ask a short batch, restate the plan, get a yes, then build. It discloses the sequential behavior, but it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., the exact questionnaire content) or any potential side effects, leaving a minor gap.

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 just two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by concise usage guidance and exclusions. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary repetition.

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 guide tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, timing, and skip conditions. It does not specify the return format, but the description implies the output is a questionnaire/batch, which is probably enough for an agent. A more explicit statement of the output structure would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already provides complete coverage. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 clearly states the tool 'gets the INTAKE questionnaire + build flow' and specifies the exact context ('before creating a new site/store/page'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of fresh builds distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_guide.

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 provides explicit when-to-use instructions ('at the start of any fresh build') and when-to-skip conditions ('tiny edits, data questions, or when the user already gave the brief / says "just do it"'). This gives the agent concrete decision rules for invocation.

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