get_design_guide

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key traits of a zero-parameter documentation fetch: that it returns a comprehensive guide and should be invoked once per session. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only and has no side effects, which for an unannotated tool would have been worth one clause.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with the resource statement front-loaded and every listed item earning its place as a preview of the guide's contents. The operational instruction ('call once at the start of a session') is buried at the end rather than surfaced first, a minor structural weakness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and the enumerated section list does that well for a no-parameter tool. Only the read-only/no-side-effect guarantee and any size or format expectation are left unstated.

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 per the baseline this is a 4. There is no parameter behavior the description could add meaning to.

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 names a specific resource ('the full design guide') and enumerates its contents (workflow, photo/floor-plan reading, pin rules, zone passes, journal template, plant selection), which clearly separates it from state/config siblings like get_full_state or get_garden_info. It never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

'Call once at the start of a session' gives explicit timing and a call-frequency constraint, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid redundantly re-fetching. There is no statement of when not to call it or of an alternative for narrower information needs.

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