get_principles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns a verbatim excerpt and chapter, not a summary, which is transparent about the output format. However, it does not mention any potential limitations such as number of entries or pagination, but given the lack of parameters, this is minor.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second adds specific details about output format and suggests alternative tools. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools, requiring no additional context for correct selection and invocation.

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 no parameters, so the input schema provides no information beyond type object with no properties. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but according to the rule for 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description compensates by explaining the output instead.

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 'returns' and the resource 'key topics/arguments in the book' with a specific scope 'curated entry points'. It further distinguishes from siblings by noting that it provides verbatim excerpts with chapter references, not summaries, and directs to get_chapter or search_content for further reading.

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 advises using get_chapter or search_content to read further, providing clear guidance on when to choose alternatives. While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear that this is for curated entry points and not for full text.

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