help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It fully discloses the behavioral modes (full card vs. specific guide, flag reference) and enumerates valid topics. It doesn't explicitly state non-mutating behavior, but that is inherent for a help tool, so it's sufficient.

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 content is dense but well-organized: it starts with a clear summary, then explains the no-topic case, then the topic list, then usage restrictions. Every phrase adds value, but it's a single long sentence that could be split for readability.

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 help tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it covers the default behavior, all valid inputs, alternative usage, and when to avoid the tool. No output schema is needed because the tool's return is self-evident.

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 description significantly enriches the schema's parameter description by listing all valid topics and explaining the two usage modes (omit for card, tool name for flag reference). This goes well beyond the schema's 'Guide topic or tool name; omit for the card.'

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 provides usage guides and distinguishes between the full workflow card (no topic) and specific guides/flag references (with topic). It is specific and stands apart from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: 'For specialized work or an unclear command shape only; not a startup step, not needed after an error that carries a hint.' However, it does not name alternative tools for these cases, so I deduct one point.

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