ask_fable_help

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it is free, local, instant, with no model call, no cost, and no network. It also discloses the behavioral constraint that harnesses truncate standing instructions at ~2 KB, explaining why the tool exists and what portion it returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the key value proposition (free, local, instant) before the topic guidance. It is dense and slightly long, but each clause maps to a usable decision cue; minor redundancy between description and schema topic list keeps it from a 5.

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 single-param, no-output-schema help tool, the description fully explains what is returned per topic and when to call it. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the per-topic content description.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents each topic, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by attaching behavior to topics, e.g. for 'refused' it says 'reframe, never resend the same question' and for 'context' it explains the paste-once-by-key model, which the schema only gestures at.

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 and resource: it returns the portion of this server's manual that does not fit in the standing instructions. This clearly distinguishes it from the ask_* siblings (which make model calls) and the context_* siblings (which manage the shared bus). An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit 'Call it when:' block enumerates four concrete trigger scenarios (refused status, re-pasting context, configuring councils, wanting the tool menu) and maps each to a topic value. It also guides speculative use ('cheap enough to call speculatively — prefer it over guessing at an argument'), which is direct when-to-use guidance.

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