help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only states 'Shows help for a command' without disclosing details such as output format, side effects (if any), or state dependence. For a help tool, it is likely read-only, but the description gives no explicit 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning: 'Shows help for a command.' It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the tool's purpose, and the parameter description covers the optional command. It could perhaps mention what kind of help is shown (e.g., usage, options), but the minimal context is sufficient for a help command. The output schema likely defines the return format, so the description need not explain it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the parameter 'command' is described as 'PyMOL command to describe. Omit for general help.' This fully clarifies the parameter's meaning and default. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already covers it, so a baseline score of 3 is 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 'Shows help for a command' uses a specific verb ('shows') and a clear resource ('help for a command'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'execute_pymol_command' or specific display commands, as it is the designated help facility.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you need help on a PyMOL command. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives, though the parameter description adds 'Omit for general help.' This provides context but not explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions.

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