build_how_to_guides

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says 'builds' and 'transforms,' implying file writing (e.g., to the output directory), but it does not confirm whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or has side effects like overwriting files. The absence of such details leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's safety and side effects.

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 two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and output content. However, the lack of parameter or usage detail makes it slightly under-informative for the task, which is a trade-off with conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of 5 parameters (1 required) and no schema descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to correctly use the tool. The output schema exists but is not described, and the required input parameter is not explained, leaving significant 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 has 0% description coverage for its 5 parameters, and the description provides no explanation of what each parameter expects or how it affects behavior. The required 'input' parameter is not described, and optional parameters like 'group_by' and 'no_ai' are left entirely to inference. This severely hinders correct invocation.

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's purpose: building how-to guides from workflow test examples. It specifies the output format (step-by-step educational guides with prerequisites, verification points, troubleshooting tips), distinguishing it from sibling tools like extract_test_examples or detect_patterns.

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 implies usage after extracting test examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_router or scrape_docs. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent with vague context.

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