help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and does not describe what the returned documentation looks like, whether the output is a list or a formatted text block, or that omitting tool_name returns all tools. This is a significant lack of transparency beyond the bare statement.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a single optional parameter and a straightforward purpose.

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 simple, read-only help tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the tool's core function, and the schema fills in parameter details. It could elaborate on the returned documentation format, but given the low complexity, the description is complete enough.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter tool_name is described as 'Specific tool to get help for. Omit for all tools.' The description adds no additional semantics beyond this, so the baseline 3 is appropriate where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Show documentation for available tools' uses a specific verb ('Show') and a clear resource ('documentation for available tools'). It unambiguously indicates this is a help tool and is distinct from siblings like project_info or asset_info, which focus on specific data domains.

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 implies usage—call this tool when you need help understanding other tools—but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or mention the optional tool_name parameter's behavior. There is no exclusions or alternative tools referenced.

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