Webhound Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe read-only behavior. The description adds the useful context 'No-spend' (no budget cost), going beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like response format or rate limits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key properties ('No-spend topic-aware guide') and covers the tool's purpose without wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description provides adequate context for a help tool. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it could elaborate on the expected use of the 'question' parameter or limitations.

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%, but the description does not elaborate on the parameters beyond listing topics in the enum. While the enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning for the 'question' parameter, missing an opportunity to explain its purpose or required format.

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 this is a 'topic-aware guide' for explaining Webhound concepts, with a specific verb ('explaining') and resource ('Webhound behavior'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like webhound_add_budget or webhound_watch, which are action-oriented, by being a help/FAQ tool.

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 implies usage for help and guidance by listing covered topics, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks exclusions or context about when not to use it.

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