get_help_page

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. "Shipped documentation" implies a static, read-only, local lookup, but the description says nothing about pagination behavior, page size, invalid-path handling, or what the returned page looks like.

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 wasted words and the key constraint ("by path") in a natural position. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity means it cannot carry the parameter guidance the schema lacks.

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 three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition should explain pagination via offset/section and the shape of a returned page. An agent could call it with a path but would be guessing about the other two parameters and the response.

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 0%, yet the description only clarifies the meaning of "path" (a documentation path). The offset and section parameters are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap on two of three parameters.

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?

"Fetch one page of Houdini's shipped documentation by path" gives a concrete verb (fetch) and a well-scoped resource (a single documentation page, local shipped docs rather than live/user content), plus the lookup key. It does not explicitly contrast with search_help, so an agent must infer the browse-vs-search distinction.

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?

"By path" implies the caller must already possess an exact documentation path, which hints that this follows a discovery step like search_help, but the description never states that, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is only implied.

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