help

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description adds important behavioral context: the docs are extracted live from code docstrings at call time, ensuring accuracy and preventing drift. This is a unique trait not otherwise disclosed. The description does not mention side effects or auth, but for a read-only help tool, this is sufficient.

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 four sentences long, each serving a purpose: stating the tool's role, explaining the two usage modes, and highlighting the benefit of live extraction. No information is redundant or extraneous, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential usage and behavioral aspects. It does not explicitly state the output format (likely plain text or markdown), but this is a minor gap. Overall, it is reasonably complete 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 input schema has one parameter 'command' with no description and 0% coverage. The description compensates by explaining its purpose: without arguments returns summaries of all tools, with 'command=<name>' returns that tool's full docstring. This fully defines the parameter's semantics.

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's purpose: to explain memai tools by reading their code docstrings. It distinguishes two modes of operation (with and without arguments), making the tool's function specific and different from sibling tools which are the actual tools being explained.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool with and without the 'command' argument. While it does not mention when not to use it, the context of a help tool makes that unnecessary. The absence of alternatives is acceptable since this is a meta-tool.

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