get_rosetta_help

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by noting 'Auto-fetches live documentation when available,' which reveals dynamic behavior not captured by readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. However, it could elaborate on fallback behavior when live docs are unavailable.

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 two concise sentences: the first states purpose and examples, the second adds behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context via examples and live-fetching behavior. It could be more complete by hinting at output format or error handling, but is sufficient for the complexity level.

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 single parameter 'topic' has 100% schema coverage, and the description enriches it with examples (score_functions, FastRelax) and categories (general topics vs specific names), providing useful context beyond the schema's generic description.

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 it gets help for Rosetta topics, movers, filters, or concepts, with specific examples (score_functions, FastRelax) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on help retrieval rather than info, web docs, or search.

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 for asking about Rosetta topics but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_rosetta_info or search_rosetta_web_docs. No exclusions or when-not conditions are provided.

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