help_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual-mode behavior and the return type ('Dict with tool descriptions and usage information'), which is helpful for a non-destructive help tool. But it doesn't cover what happens with an invalid tool_name, whether output is markdown or plain text, or any error behavior.

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 tightly packed and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose, two short usage-mode lines, then compact Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the examples make it actionable without bloat.

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 tool with one optional parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both invocation modes, the parameter semantics, and the return shape. Minor gaps remain, such as behavior for an unknown tool name and the display format of the returned help, but nothing critical to a correct call.

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, and it does: it names the parameter, marks it optional, explains its effect, and gives concrete examples ('save_finding', 'create_session'). It stops short of explaining invalid-name handling or case sensitivity, but for a single optional parameter the meaning is well conveyed.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get help about all OpenLMlib MCP tools or a specific tool.' It clearly identifies the two operation modes (no-arg summary vs. specific-tool detail). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling `help_collab`, so an agent might not immediately know which help tool to pick.

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 gives explicit call patterns: 'Call this with no arguments to see all available tools' and 'Call with a specific tool_name to get detailed usage instructions.' This is clear contextual guidance for both modes. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., when help_collab should be used instead), so the full when/when-not guidance is absent.

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