gretl_help

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it states that by default it 'requires opening the help workflow in the visible Gretl GUI'. However, it does not mention return format, side effects (e.g., no data modification), or what happens if no GUI is available.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, and no extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and the tool's nature as a help command, the description covers the main purpose and default behavior. However, it lacks information about what the tool returns (text or GUI window) and the detailed interaction with the GUI parameters, leaving some context incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 60%, but the description does not add significant meaning for the 3 described parameters (commandName, requireGui, displayInGretl) beyond the schema. The two undocumented parameters (gretlCliPath, gretlGuiPath) are left unexplained, and the description fails to compensate for this gap.

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 verb 'Ask' and the resource 'Gretl for command help', with specific examples like ols, summary. It distinguishes well from sibling tools such as gretl_ols (which runs OLS rather than showing help).

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 context about the default GUI requirement but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gretl_run_script or gretl_ols. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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