Help

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: dynamic output based on argument type, and mentions 'from cache' for device types. No contradictions.

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—three bullet points with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with 'Context-aware help' and efficiently covers all cases.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what each input returns (guide, usage, capabilities). It covers the complexity of a help tool with optional parameter, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds significant value by explaining the three outcomes (conceptual guide, tool usage, capabilities) beyond the schema's generic 'Tool name, device type, or omit'.

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 context-aware help, distinguishing three distinct cases (no argument, tool name, device type). It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools which are all functional, not help-oriented.

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 explicitly details when to use each variant (no args for conceptual guide, tool name for tool usage, device type for capabilities). Although it does not mention when not to use it, the context is clear and covers the main use cases.

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