help

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive nature of the tool. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that the output is a syntax catalogue and worked examples, and that bare help() returns a documentation index, which is useful beyond the annotation hints.

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 concise sentences deliver the core purpose, usage pattern, and fallback behavior without wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple meta-tool with one optional parameter, the description fully covers invocation, output behavior, and fallback usage. No output schema is present, but the description adequately conveys what the tool returns.

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 description already fully covers the tool parameter and the omit-for-index behavior at 100% coverage. The description reinforces this but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies this as a meta-tool providing full syntax, argument catalogues, and worked examples for other tools. It specifies both the bare help() form and the help(tool="NAME") form, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance: call help(tool="NAME") before an uncertain call, and use bare help() to see what is documented. This is direct, actionable, and leaves no ambiguity about when to use the tool.

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