Pharaoh - Your AI breaks things it can't see

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

Annotations establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these annotations by specifying the return format ('markdown'), content structure ('Relevant documentation sections'), and reference links ('links to the full page on pharaoh.so/docs').

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 uses a clear three-part structure: value proposition ('Stuck, confused...'), usage criteria ('CALL THIS WHEN'), and output specification ('RETURNS'). Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy despite the structured formatting.

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 simplicity (no parameters, read-only) and lack of output schema, the description compensates adequately by explicitly stating what content is returned and its format. Minor gap: it doesn't explicitly characterize the search/retrieval mechanism (semantic vs keyword), though this is implied by the troubleshooting context.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters (empty object). Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters warrants a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not fabricate parameter semantics where none 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 retrieves help documentation using specific verbs ('Get help from Pharaoh's documentation') and explicitly scopes it to setup, tools, security, and pricing. It effectively distinguishes itself from technical code-analysis siblings like get_blast_radius and get_codebase_map by positioning as the product support/documentation resource.

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 includes an explicit 'CALL THIS WHEN:' section with five specific scenarios (troubleshooting unexpected results, setup instructions, 'how does Pharaoh do X' questions, etc.). This provides clear contextual boundaries that prevent confusion with the server's numerous code analysis tools.

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