arthas_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the tool's purpose. It does not disclose what happens if an invalid command is specified, whether a list is shown without a command, or any side effects. Behavioral traits are minimally addressed.

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 a single, straightforward sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, though slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.

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 the need to understand the help format, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., text, structured data) or handle edge cases. Completeness is insufficient for an agent to fully interpret the tool's behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'Get help', such as explaining that an empty 'command' parameter might list all commands. Thus it remains at the baseline.

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 'Get help for Arthas commands' uses a specific verb-resource combination, clearly indicating the tool provides assistance for Arthas commands. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated help command.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to consult specific command help or when to use the cookbook or other resources. The description lacks any context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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