Get module/class help

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it states the data source is 'embedded knowledge base (offline)', and describes the return behavior for unknown names (suggestions). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation.

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: the first covers purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool (one parameter, no output schema, clear annotations), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, output format, fallback behavior, and when to use alternative. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides a good description for the single parameter 'name' with examples. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 verb 'get' and resource 'module/class help', specifies the output format (Markdown) and the fallback behavior with suggestions. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_td_class_details' by noting the difference in output format (Markdown vs structured JSON).

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 advises when to use the alternative tool 'get_td_class_details' for structured JSON output. It also implies context (read-only, offline knowledge base) and when to use this tool (when human-readable help is desired).

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