cli_add_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions generation but does not say whether it writes files, what files it creates, whether it returns content, what authentication requirements apply beyond the api_key parameter, or how a Pro account affects execution.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the actionable verb and output scope. It avoids redundancy and contains no filler.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. An agent would not know what the tool returns, whether it mutates the filesystem, how the Pro flag affects behavior, or how to choose it over the several more specialized CLI documentation siblings.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds minimal value by mapping the output types to man pages and shell completions, but it does not enrich any parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Generate') and resource: comprehensive help text, man pages, and shell completions for a CLI. It is understandable on its own, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like clidocs_generate_help, clidocs_generate_manpage, and cli_add_commands.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many overlapping CLI-related siblings such as clidocs_generate_manpage, clidocs_generate_help, or cli_add_commands. The '(Pro)' marker hints at an access restriction but does not explain when this is the appropriate choice.

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