geogebra_help

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only help operation but doesn't explicitly state side effects or confirm non-destructiveness. The behavioral transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the implicit purpose.

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: a clear purpose statement and a usage guideline, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, no 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 and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and parameters adequately. It lacks detail on the output format (e.g., text or list), but this is minor for a help tool.

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 description adds full meaning to the 'topic' parameter by listing possible values and their semantics (commands, mechanisms, animation, all). The schema has 0% description coverage and no enum, so the description entirely compensates.

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 provides help for GeoGebra commands and mechanism design, distinguishing it from execution tools like geogebra_create_construction. It specifies the resource (commands and mechanism design) and the action (get help).

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 advises calling this tool before building a mechanism ('在构建机构之前先调用此工具'), providing clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient.

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