help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior: omitting topic returns the full workflow card, a listed topic returns its guide, and a tool name returns its complete flag reference. It does not detail output formatting or invalid-topic behavior, but the behavioral surface of a help tool is well covered.

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 sentences carry all essential information and are front-loaded with the core purpose. The long second sentence is dense but each clause adds a distinct rule, and the guidance is structured logically from current behavior to exclusions.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains return types for all invocation forms: workflow card, guide, or flag reference. The single parameter's usage and omission behavior are fully covered, and the usage caveats complete the picture for an agent deciding when to call this tool.

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 already covers topic with 'Guide topic or tool name; omit for the card,' but the description adds significant meaning by enumerating all valid guide topics and clarifying the tool-name path. This goes beyond the schema's brief description and helps the agent form correct invocations.

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 the tool as a usage guide dispatcher: 'Usage guides' plus a precise mapping of topic values to guides, the workflow card, or a tool's flag reference. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling command tools because it is the meta/help tool, not an operational command.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'For specialized work or an unclear command shape only; not a startup step, not needed after an error that carries a hint.' It also explains the no-topic case and the alternate form for tool-name flag references, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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