ead_factory_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that 'no credentials needed' and that it serves as a discovery/guidance tool, which is useful contextual information beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns an overview'), and every phrase earns its place. It covers contents, usage, and access requirements without waste.

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 params and no output schema, the description is the sole source of guidance. It fully explains what the tool returns (managers and key tools), when to use it (first if unsure), the key decision guidance (composite vs. atomic), and access requirements (no credentials). This is complete for a help 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 tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline for a score of 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because the schema has no properties, and the 100% schema coverage means there is nothing to add.

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 'Returns an overview of EAD Factory's managers' with specific verbs and resources, listing the manager types (Evidence, Signature, Notification, Chat) and the guidance it provides. This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform domain actions rather than providing help.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this first if you're unsure which tool to use' and mentions guidance on composite vs. atomic tool selection (e.g., evidence_create_sealed). This gives clear when-to-use direction and differentiates its purpose from the operational siblings.

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