Help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides almost none. 'receive help information' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what format the help comes in (text, structured data, links), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits. The description fails to compensate for the absence of annotations with meaningful behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just three words, but this brevity comes at the cost of being under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While there's no wasted text, the description fails to provide the minimal necessary information about what the tool actually does. It's more sparse than appropriately concise.

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 complete absence of annotations and output schema, the description is inadequate for understanding this tool's functionality. 'receive help information' doesn't explain what help is provided, how it's structured, what topics it covers, or how it differs from other assistance tools in the sibling set. For a tool that presumably provides important guidance to users, this description leaves too many questions unanswered.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline score for this dimension is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it doesn't incorrectly suggest parameters where none are defined. This is appropriate for a parameterless tool.

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 'receive help information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'Help' without providing meaningful specificity. It doesn't explain what kind of help information is provided, in what format, or what resources it covers. While it's clear this is a help tool, it lacks the verb+resource specificity that would distinguish it from other help mechanisms.

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 provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'ask-codex', 'brainstorm', and 'fetch-chunk' that might also provide assistance or information, there's no indication whether this is a general help system, documentation lookup, or something else. The agent receives no explicit or implied context about appropriate usage scenarios.

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