cad_tool_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds content-level context (version, examples, risk notes) beyond the annotations, which is useful, but it omits what happens for an unknown tool name (error vs. empty help) and whether the content is static or version-specific to the installed suite.

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?

One front-loaded sentence of about fifteen words with no filler; the resource ('curated help') comes before the enumeration of contents. The list of four content types is dense but each item carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and read-only semantics are covered by annotations. For a one-parameter lookup tool the definition is close to sufficient, but the lack of any guidance on the tool-name argument leaves a real gap for invocation correctness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the single parameter is a nested request.tool string with no description, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a suite tool' does establish that the parameter identifies a tool within the suite, but it says nothing about accepted name format or whether tool names must match sibling names exactly.

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 uses a specific verb (Show) and names the concrete payload: curated help, version, examples, and risk notes for a suite tool. It implicitly distinguishes itself from execution siblings like cad_tool_run or cad_tool_search by being a documentation lookup, but it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a discovery/help call to be used before invoking an unfamiliar suite tool, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to cad_tool_search. Nothing tells the agent whether it should be called once per tool or cached.

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