trybiut_help

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, and it does not explicitly state that this is a static, read-only, side-effect-free informational tool. It implies the tool returns instructional content, but for an unannotated tool the safety profile is left unstated.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the main topics and end-loads the free-tier note. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description covers the relevant topic domains an agent needs to know before invoking it. Slightly more detail about what the returned help content looks like would push it to a 5, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about inputs, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter discussion.

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 names a specific resource (help/onboarding guide) and enumerates its content: registration, login, API token acquisition, and free-tier capabilities. This clearly distinguishes it from operational siblings like trybiut_auth_register and trybiut_me, which perform the actual actions rather than explain them.

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?

Usage context is implied — an agent can infer this is the starting point for onboarding questions — but the description never explicitly states 'use this when you need guidance on getting started or before calling operational tools.' No exclusions or alternative routing are given, though sibling names make the distinction reasonably discoverable.

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