help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool provides 'detailed help and examples,' which gives some behavioral insight (it's informational/read-only). However, it lacks details on what the help includes (e.g., syntax, parameters, examples), whether it's interactive, if there are rate limits, or how results are formatted. For a help tool with no annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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: 'Get detailed help and examples for smalledit tools.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant information, and efficiently communicates the tool's function without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete but could be enhanced. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on what 'detailed help and examples' entails, such as the structure of the output or specific use cases. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about the behavioral aspects, but it's minimally adequate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'tool' documented as 'Tool name for help (e.g., "sed_edit", "perl_edit") or "all" for overview.' The description doesn't add any additional semantic meaning beyond this, such as explaining the format of help output or usage examples. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get detailed help and examples for smalledit tools.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed help and examples'), and identifies the domain ('smalledit tools'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from potential sibling tools that might also provide help or documentation, though in this context it's likely the primary help tool.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'smalledit tools,' suggesting it's for tools in that suite. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if other tools offer help or documentation), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is somewhat inferred but not clearly articulated.

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