How much Trood should help, per area

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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the default level when nothing is set, that declined offers are included in the payload, and a hard constraint on how the returned data must be used.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the action rule. Every clause carries information — values, default, extra payload, and the usage constraint — with no restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description covers the return shape conceptually: a level per area plus declined offers. With no parameters and annotations already covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's 'in this project' hints at implicit project scoping, but no parameter exists to document.

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?

States a specific resource (the help level for each area in this project) and enumerates its possible values (guide, hint, quiet) plus the default ('default hint'). It also names the secondary payload — the offers the person turned down — which an agent could not have guessed from the name alone.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Check it before offering help, explanations or tutorials,' and an explicit prohibition: 'never repeat a declined offer.' It does not name the write-side counterpart (set_trood_level) or decline_offer as the place where those declined offers originate, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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