rednote_help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: the tool is side-effect free with respect to the target service ('Never touches RedNote'). It also previews the return content (tool/prompt inventory, current mode, remaining budget). It stops short of stating it is read-only/unauthenticated or whether the budget figure is a shared/quota resource, but the safety profile is clear.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool reports, followed by the distinguishing constraint. Every word earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 zero-parameter, low-risk help tool with no output schema, the description covers what the agent needs: what it returns and that it does not affect RedNote. Only minor gaps remain (whether the budget is per-session or per-account, and that it is a safe read), which are small relative to the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds nothing about arguments, and the empty schema is consistent with a parameterless introspection call.

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 function: enumerating every tool and prompt, the current mode, and the remaining daily budget. It also explicitly distances itself from the sibling set ('Never touches RedNote'), so an agent can tell it is the meta/help tool rather than a RedNote operation. The phrasing 'What rednote-gate can do' is indirect as an opener but the enumerated outputs make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer it should call this when it needs a capability overview or budget check. There is no explicit 'call this when...' guidance, nor any note about when it is unnecessary (e.g. when you already know the toolset). Adequate but not directive.

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