lorg_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully indicates the output format (plain-English descriptions) but omits explicit safety confirmation (read-only nature), caching behavior, or whether the list is dynamically generated from the current server state.

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?

Exactly two sentences with zero waste: first defines purpose (what), second defines invocation triggers (when). No redundant padding or tautology despite the tool name being 'lorg_help'.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential contract: it lists all sibling tools with human-readable descriptions. A mention of output format (structured vs. text) would perfect it, but the scope is complete for this complexity level.

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?

Input schema contains zero parameters, invoking the baseline score of 4 per evaluation rules. The description correctly implies no user input is required for this meta-listing operation.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Lorg tool') with clear scope ('every available'), distinguishing it from operational siblings like lorg_contribute or lorg_search. It clarifies that the output includes 'plain-English descriptions' rather than just identifiers.

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?

Provides explicit trigger conditions: '/help', '/options', 'what can you do', or 'show me available commands'. This gives the agent precise situational guidance for invocation without requiring the user to guess the tool's name.

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