get_houdini_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does so admirably. It discloses that HTML parsing uses only stdlib html.parser with zero new pip dependencies, HTTP errors and timeouts degrade to status=error without raising exceptions, and the response passes through apply_response_cap.

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 well-structured and front-loaded, with a clear purpose followed by compact parameter and behavior details. Each sentence adds meaningful information; the only minor distraction is the unexplained '(PR 15)' token, which does not materially hurt usefulness.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core usage scenario, return dict fields, error behavior, and dependency footprint. The main gaps are the undocumented ctx parameter and the lack of a concrete example invocation, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the prose must explain each parameter. It explains help_type (with all 11 values), item_name, and timeout, but completely omits the required ctx parameter, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: querying SideFX online documentation for Houdini nodes, VEX functions, or hou methods. It clearly distinguishes the tool from broader doc/search siblings by enumerating the exact supported help_type categories.

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 supported help types (sop, obj, vex_function, python_hou, etc.) and the definition of item_name make the intended usage context clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_docs or get_doc, nor does it mention exclusions.

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