help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It implies a read-only, safe operation ('Get documentation'), but doesn't disclose return format, potential size, or any caveats. For a simple help tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning a perfect score.

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 help tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could specify what kind of documentation (e.g., examples, return values) but is sufficient for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits them.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('comprehensive documentation for all frontiermath functions'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings, which are math solvers, by focusing on documentation.

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 usage is implied by the tool's name and description: use it to obtain documentation for the other frontiermath tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or provide any exclusions.

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