daz_script_help

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It explains it returns 'Formatted documentation with examples for the requested topic.' It does not mention side effects, but as a read-only help tool, that is acceptable. Could be slightly improved by explicitly stating it is non-destructive.

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 well-structured and concise. Key info (purpose, usage advice) is front-loaded. The list of topics is neatly organized with bullet points. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, returns formatted docs), the description provides all necessary information: purpose, usage context, available topics, argument details, and return value. It is fully complete for the agent to use it correctly.

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?

Input schema has only one optional parameter 'topic' with 0% description coverage. The description compensates excellently by listing all possible topic values and their meanings (e.g., 'gotchas: Critical mistakes that cause timeouts or incorrect results'), adding significant semantic value 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get DazScript documentation, examples, and best practices.' The verb 'Get' and resource 'DazScript documentation' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which are action-oriented (e.g., daz_execute, daz_render) rather than informational.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool BEFORE writing DazScript to learn correct patterns and avoid common mistakes.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. The detailed list of topics further helps the agent select the right topic, effectively guiding usage.

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