help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether output is a plain list, formatted usage text, or per-command detail. It is a low-risk read-only style tool, but with zero annotation coverage the absence of any output/behavior statement is a real gap.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with no padding, and the key content is stated immediately. It loses a point only because the fragment lacks a verb, making it terse to the point of grammatical incompleteness rather than efficiently structured.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is the only source of information, and it leaves the return shape and scope of 'every cocut command' unexplained. For a discovery/help entry point that agents rely on to route to the right tool, this is under-specified.

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 schema declares zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The mention of 'selector flags' is content of the help output, not an input, so it adds no parameter meaning either way.

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 fragment names the resource content ('every cocut command and the selector flags') but supplies no verb, so it is unclear whether the tool lists command names, prints usage text, or returns documentation. 'Selector flags' and 'cocut command' are undefined jargon that the agent cannot resolve from this definition or its siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the siblings 'show', 'assets', or 'run'. A help tool is largely self-explanatory, but nothing here confirms that this is the discovery entry point or when an agent should prefer it over just invoking a command directly.

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