Read the complete PromptEye help knowledge base

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it warns against concluding something is undocumented from partial excerpts, instructs the agent to say so if the corpus cannot be read or lacks an answer, and specifies answer language, citation, and not inventing behavior. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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 four sentences and roughly 100 words. While longer than some, every sentence earns its place: it gives the return value, the usage context, caution about partial sources, and response requirements. The structure is logical, though the length is slightly above the minimum needed for a zero-parameter tool.

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, read-only tool with annotations already covering safety, the description is complete: it provides the exact data source, how to use it, what to do on failure, and response standards. No output schema exists, and the description sufficiently covers what the agent needs to call and use the tool correctly.

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 schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none, but it also does not need to.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the complete PromptEye Help corpus as one text file.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_help_article, which presumably returns a single article, by emphasizing the complete corpus. The inclusion of the URL further anchors the scope.

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 'Use this as the source of truth for questions about how PromptEye works,' giving a clear trigger for when to invoke this tool. It also instructs to search and check relevant articles in the corpus before answering. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as read_help_article or list_help_articles, leaving some inference to the agent.

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