tool_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety/behavior profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuine piece of context—that tools hidden by compact mode surface here—but says nothing about return shape, size limits, or behavior on an unknown name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler—appropriate for a simple discovery tool. Minor deduction because 'full-surface tools' is unglossed jargon an agent may not resolve without outside knowledge.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state what is returned (descriptions and complete schemas), covering the return-value burden, and annotations cover safety. It falls short only on operand interaction (name/query/session) and behavior for unmatched lookups.

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 100%, so all three parameters (name, query, session) are documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the parameters—notably not clarifying whether name and query are mutually exclusive or combinable.

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+resource (returns descriptions and complete schemas for tools) and adds a distinguishing scope note ('including tools hidden in compact mode'). However, it does not name or differentiate itself from closely related siblings like mcp_info or call, which an agent browsing tool-discovery options would need.

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: the compact-mode reference hints at when this is needed (when a tool isn't visible), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., mcp_info) guidance. Nothing tells the agent how name vs query should be chosen.

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