raw_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it may 'open a dialog or change project state,' which is a meaningful side-effect warning, and advises to 'inspect the command name first.' This goes beyond a bare statement and gives the agent actionable caution, though the 'command name' reference is unclear without a parameter.

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 sentences, front-loads the purpose, and uses no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'Static no-argument Audacity action' sets expectations, 'May open a dialog or change project state' warns of side effects, and 'inspect the command name first' gives a caution. It is appropriately sized for a trivial tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior and return value. It does not describe what the help output looks like or whether text is returned, nor does it clarify how to specify a command name when no parameters exist. The ambiguity around the command name is a significant gap for an agent trying to use it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no information. The description adds a hint about 'inspect the command name first,' which implies some implicit input, but it is not a formal parameter. With 0 parameters, the rubric baseline is 4, and the description does not contradict the schema, though the hint is ambiguous.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Get help information for a command.' It names the verb (get) and resource (help information). It does not differentiate from siblings like raw_manual or raw_quick_help, and the phrase 'for a command' is ambiguous given the tool takes no arguments, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

It provides some context: 'Static no-argument Audacity action' and warns to 'inspect the command name first.' However, it does not explain when to use this tool instead of raw_manual or raw_quick_help, nor does it clarify how the command name is specified given the absence of parameters. The usage guidance is present but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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