help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the different behaviors based on topic, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. The schema mentions an 'identity' topic not covered in the description, creating a minor 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?

The description is extremely concise, using two sentences to convey all necessary information. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like notation for clarity.

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 simplicity of the help tool, the description covers most usage scenarios. It lacks mention of the 'identity' topic (present in schema), and does not describe return format, but for a help tool this is acceptable.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (topic and token) with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond restating the options; it does not provide additional parameter semantics that the schema lacks.

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 as 'Discovery for this MCP server' and specifies distinct behaviors for different inputs (no args, 'index', 'guide', tool name). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings (action, dequeue, send) which are likely operational tools.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each variant (overview, index, guide, detailed help). While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, the context makes it obvious that help is for information and not for performing actions.

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