syntax_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It effectively conveys that this is a non-destructive read-only lookup, discloses the no-argument listing behavior, and enumerates the exact valid topics. This is sufficient behavioral context for a reference tool.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The topic list is front-loaded, followed by the no-topic call convention and the usage timing in a logical, compact order.

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?

Complete for a simple one-parameter reference tool with no output schema. It covers topics, calling conventions, and when to use it. It could mention the shape of the returned content, but that is a minor gap given how self-contained the purpose is.

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% and the schema already documents the topic parameter. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by enumerating all valid topic values (mixture, cfa, growth, etc.), which the schema does not list. This goes beyond the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Mplus syntax reference') and enumerates the topics covered. It is clearly distinguished from its operational siblings (build_syntax, run_syntax, output_summary, compare_fit), which all execute or analyze rather than provide reference material.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it before writing syntax for a model family you have not written recently.' It also discloses the no-topic listing behavior. It does not name exclusion cases or alternatives, but for a help tool the guidance is clear and actionable.

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