super_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. It describes what the tool does (retrieves documentation) and when to use it, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the documentation returns in, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and topic details. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about purpose and usage. However, it doesn't explain what format the documentation returns in or provide details about the differences between topic options, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'topic' fully documented with enum values. The description adds context about what topics are available ('expert (syntax guide), upgrade (zq migration)'), which provides semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum list, but doesn't explain the differences between the enum values.

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's purpose: 'Get SuperDB documentation' with specific use cases ('before writing complex queries or when migrating'). It distinguishes from some siblings like super_db_query or super_db_create_pool, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from super_docs which might have overlapping functionality.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('before writing complex queries or when migrating'), including specific scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, particularly super_docs which appears related.

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