rails_get_helper_methods

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that omitting 'helper' lists all helpers with counts and that full detail includes view cross-references, but that largely mirrors the detail enum in the schema rather than adding new behavioral context like output size or cost.

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?

Three tight sentences: scope first, usage triggers second, invocation pattern last. No filler and everything is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned content well enough for an agent to know what it will get at each detail level. Pagination semantics (limit/offset) are left entirely to the schema, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes slightly beyond by showing a concrete usage pattern: pass helper:"ApplicationHelper" for full detail versus omitting it to list all helpers with method counts. It doesn't explain limit/offset interaction with that behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get Rails helper modules') and enumerates exactly what it returns: method signatures, helper_method declarations, framework helpers, and view call-sites. That scope separates it in practice from rails_get_view or rails_get_controllers, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when:' clause with three concrete triggers (finding available view helpers, checking helper methods, understanding shared view logic). It gives no when-not conditions and doesn't route to alternatives such as rails_get_view for view-side logic.

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