help_collab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the two behavior modes and states the return type: 'Dict with tool descriptions and usage information.' It does not detail error cases for unknown tool names, but for a help tool this level of transparency is adequate.

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 compact and well-structured, with a clear first sentence, numbered call patterns, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds practical value and the front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 one-optional-parameter help tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation modes, parameter semantics, and return type. Nothing material is missing for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare tool_name property. It explains that the parameter is optional, selects a specific tool, and provides a concrete example. This gives the agent enough semantic grounding to use the parameter correctly without enumerating all valid tool names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get help about all collab MCP tools or a specific tool.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling help_library (library-focused) and makes the scope immediate. It also clarifies the two main invocation modes, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call with no arguments versus with a tool_name, and gives an example ('create_session'). It does not explicitly contrast with help_library, but the 'collab MCP tools' scope and the name handle most of that differentiation. Some exclusion guidance would push this to a 5.

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