help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It reveals an informational/read-only nature via the verb 'Show', but it does not specify the output format or whether it returns a list vs prints instructions. No contradictions exist, and the behavior is straightforward for a help tool.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero unnecessary words. It is immediately understandable and stays within a compact length.

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 trivial help tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It explains the subject (Electric Cherry) and the scope (across different tools), leaving no significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related noise, making it 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 uses a specific verb ('Show'), names the resource ('install instructions for Electric Cherry'), and clarifies scope ('across different tools'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling setup/debug tools by indicating it provides instructions rather than performing operations.

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 implies the tool should be used when install instructions are needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool or state when not to use it. Since no other help/instruction tool exists among the siblings, the context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives.

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