reso_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does convey that the tool returns documentation and reference content rather than performing mutations or executing queries. However, it does not disclose details like whether it returns one topic at a time, how output is formatted, or any limitations such as lack of rate limits or auth requirements. For a simple help tool, this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 short, but the two sentences are somewhat redundant: 'RESO field reference documentation, query examples, and best practices' overlaps with 'field guides, entity descriptions, filter patterns, and common use cases.' Phrases like 'instant access' and 'effective RESO API usage' are filler rather than informative. It could be tighter without losing meaning.

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?

For a tool with a single enum parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what the tool returns and its general scope. It covers the purpose and content areas, while the schema fully enumerates the selectable topics. It does not explain return structure, but that is less critical given the simple, documentation-oriented nature of the 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage and enumerates all valid topics with a clear enum. The description adds general context about what kinds of help are available but does not meaningfully expand on individual parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 identifies the tool as a reference/help resource for RESO: 'Get comprehensive RESO field reference documentation, query examples, and best practices.' The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource type makes the purpose concrete, and it is naturally distinguished from the sibling reso_query, which presumably executes queries.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs RESO documentation, examples, or best practices, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over reso_query. There is no direct 'use this when...' or 'use reso_query instead for...' guidance, leaving the usage context to inference.

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