get_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool only reads a guide, implying no side effects, but it doesn't explicitly confirm read-only behavior or describe what the response contains (e.g., text, format). This is a minor gap, but users can infer the operation is non-destructive from the verb 'read'. A brief note on return type would elevate this, but the current description is adequate for a simple informational tool.

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 concise, with the primary function and key recommendation in the first sentence, followed by a compact list of additional topics. Every sentence contributes practical information, and there is no redundancy or filler. The structure front-loads the critical 'call first' advice, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 read-only guide tool, the description and schema together cover the essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and what parameters to pass. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description's clarity that it 'reads a guide', implying a textual return. The only minor gap is not specifying the response format or any potential latency, but these are non-critical for an informational tool. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 provides thorough descriptions for the 'topic' parameter, covering all valid values and their meanings (100% coverage), which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds value by recommending a specific topic for initial usage ('paper-mcp-instructions'), which is actionable guidance not present in the schema. This extra usage hint justifies a score above baseline.

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 verb 'read' and the resource 'detailed guide on a specific topic', making the tool's function unambiguous. It also lists example topics, which reinforces what it operates on. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, it is obviously distinct from design manipulation tools, so no confusion arises.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call with topic 'paper-mcp-instructions' before using other Paper tools, providing concrete when-to-use guidance. It also enumerates available topics, giving the agent a clear set of valid inputs. There are no alternatives to rule out, so the guidance is complete.

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