ddev_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 explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool returns the same output as shell help commands and clarifies the format for different argument combinations. It also states that projectPath is not required for help, which is useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly mention side effects, but for a help tool this is sufficient.

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 organized into a clear introduction, usage syntax, and examples. While longer than two sentences, every part contributes useful information: the purpose, when to use, exact syntax, and examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides supporting details without excessive verbosity.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, how to use it, and what output to expect (same as shell help). It covers all parameter combinations and examples. It does not over-explain return values, which is appropriate since the output is standard help text.

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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., command="import-db" → ddev help import-db; command="snapshot", subcommand="restore" → ddev snapshot restore --help) and clarifying that projectPath is optional and not needed for help. This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 help for any DDEV command." It uses a specific verb (get help) and resource (DDEV command), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actual DDEV operations like start, stop, or snapshot. The inclusion of shell-equivalent examples reinforces the purpose.

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 says "Use when you need exact flags, examples, or usage for a ddev command," providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. It also gives usage patterns and examples for combining command and subcommand. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, though no alternative help tool exists among the siblings.

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