help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adequately discloses that the tool returns informational content (tips, examples, reporting instructions) and implies a read-only, safe operation. While it doesn't specify exact output format, it is sufficient for this simple informational 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes a clear trigger condition. Every phrase earns its place, with no wasteful or redundant wording.

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 zero-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, content, and usage trigger. It is complete for the agent to decide when and how to invoke it, and no further context is needed.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately does not attempt to document parameters that do not exist.

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 provides usage tips, common examples, and bug/feature request guidance for the MCP server. It uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'usage tips for this MCP server', distinguishing it from the many domain-specific sibling tools.

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 explicitly says 'Call this when the user asks for help, examples, or how to use this MCP.' This provides clear context for when to use it. It does not mention alternatives, but no alternatives exist given it is the sole help tool.

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