mu_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only documentation lookup, but never states that explicitly, nor does it describe output size or whether topics can be combined. For a low-risk help tool this is adequate, but it adds little behavioral context beyond the topic list.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the routing condition, followed by a compact topic legend. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a single-enum documentation tool, the purpose, trigger condition, and value semantics are all covered.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is an enum, so the description must supply meaning for the values. It does: each of query, fields, find, and extract is annotated with a parenthetical scope, letting the agent pick the right topic without guessing.

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 resource ('full mu reference') and enumerates the four topic areas it covers, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It also distinguishes itself from search_emails by positioning itself as the deeper version of that tool's short guide.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('when the short guide in search_emails isn't enough') and names the alternative, so the agent can decide between calling search_emails' inline guide and calling this tool. The inverse condition (short guide suffices) follows directly.

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