pro_tool_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context by stating 'No CAD call' and by explaining how retrieved native schemas relate to pro_run_plan versus PRO workflows. It does not disclose what happens with an unknown tool name or what the response looks like.

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?

Three short, front-loaded fragments with no wasted prose, and the core purpose leads. The clipped style ('No CAD call') is efficient but slightly cryptic and could be misread without prior context.

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 one-parameter meta tool with no output schema, the definition covers intent and the no-side-effect nature. It does not explain the return payload (schema text versus JSON) or error behavior for an unknown tool, which are the remaining gaps an agent would want.

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 0% for the single 'tool' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does convey that the value is a native or PRO tool name, but adds nothing about required exactness, case sensitivity, or whether the name must correspond to an existing tool.

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 verb and resource ('Get an exact native or PRO tool schema') and draws a distinction between native tools, which are usable through pro_run_plan, and PRO workflows, which are not plan steps. An agent understands this is a schema-lookup/help tool, though it is not differentiated from close siblings such as pro_capabilities, pro_operations, or pro_operation.

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?

'On demand' implies the usage context, and the native-vs-PRO sentence hints at why one would need the exact schema. However, there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no guidance on choosing this over pro_capabilities, pro_operations, or pro_operation, leaving selection ambiguous.

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