operation_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: returns a parameter reference for a named operation or a topic list when called with no arguments. It adds useful context about documentation location, though it does not explicitly state side-effect freedom (likely inherent for a help 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It avoids fluff while conveying the parameter usage, documentation strategy, and examples.

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 help/lookup tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the input behavior, the fallback when omitted, and why docs live here rather than in docstrings. No additional return-value detail is needed because an output schema exists.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (string/null, default null), with zero description coverage. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's semantics: pass an operation name to get its reference, or omit it to get the topic list, with examples. It could enumerate all valid operation names, but the fallback to a topic list mitigates this.

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 identifies the tool as a documentation reference for cad() operations and assembly_session, with specific examples like 'sketch' and 'hull'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform operations 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?

It explicitly states how to invoke the tool ('Call with an operation name... or none for the topic list') and gives concrete examples. It also implies when not to rely on docstrings ('Detailed docs live here... to keep the tool list small'), but does not name specific alternative tools or exclusions.

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