solve-problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] help' but doesn't explain what form this help takes (e.g., troubleshooting steps, error resolution, documentation links), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get help with common PaymanAI integration issues'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns (e.g., help text, links, steps), behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites, and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context to fully inform usage.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters: 'problem' ('Describe the issue you're experiencing') and 'sdk' ('Which SDK you're using'). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 help with common PaymanAI integration issues'. It specifies the action ('Get help') and the resource ('common PaymanAI integration issues'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-sdk-help' or 'search-documentation', which might offer similar assistance.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'common PaymanAI integration issues' but doesn't specify what qualifies as 'common' or when to choose this over sibling tools such as 'get-sdk-help' or 'search-documentation'. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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