tube_bridge_help

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by listing the documentation's scope (available tools, architecture, known limitations, API key setup), giving the agent insight into what information will be returned. No contradictions with annotations; the description complements them well.

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, well-structured sentence that starts with the action ('Get') and immediately specifies the resource and content. Every word is information-dense, with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what the documentation covers, which is all an agent needs to decide to invoke it. The lack of parameters and simple read-only nature mean no additional context is required.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, as there are none. It correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than inventing parameter details.

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 tube-bridge documentation' and enumerates the specific content covered (available tools, architecture, known limitations, API key setup). The verb 'Get' plus the resource 'documentation' unambiguously identifies this as an informational tool, distinguishing it from operational siblings like youtube_search_channels or corpus_create.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is the tool to retrieve documentation about the tube-bridge system. While it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, the sibling tools are all operational (search, get info, create corpus), so the purpose inherently implies when to use this help tool. It lacks explicit 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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