get_tool_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 describes the output ('Returns the tool's --help output') and purpose, but lacks details on potential errors (e.g., if the tool doesn't exist), rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds some context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and output without unnecessary details. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the action and result, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, though it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., error handling) to fully compensate for the lack of annotations and output schema.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'tool' with its description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing that it returns help output, but does not provide additional semantics like examples of valid tool names or constraints beyond what the schema states.

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 specific action ('Get usage help') and resource ('for a REMnux tool'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'run_tool' or 'check_tools' by focusing on documentation retrieval rather than execution or verification. It explicitly mentions what is returned ('the tool's --help output') to clarify the output format.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to understand available flags, options, and usage patterns'), implying it's for learning about tool capabilities before execution. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'run_tool' for actual tool execution, which would be helpful for differentiation.

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