get_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed usage info and examples,' which implies a read-only, informational operation, but fails to specify aspects like response format, error handling, or any constraints (e.g., rate limits or authentication needs). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter with an enum), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage context, which are essential for an agent to effectively invoke and interpret results from this informational tool.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage but includes an enum of valid tool names. It clarifies that the parameter is for 'a specific tool,' aligning with the enum, but doesn't explain the semantics of the tool_name parameter further (e.g., format or selection criteria). Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation results in an average score.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed usage info and examples for a specific tool'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from potential alternatives or clarify its unique role among the sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as whether it's for learning tool capabilities or troubleshooting. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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