get_help_page

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It conveys that the tool is a read-only documentation fetch for a single page, and gives path examples, but it does not disclose the output format, error behavior for invalid paths, or whether the page content is returned as raw text, HTML, or structured data.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the core action in the first line, then supplies a motivation and parameter guidance. Every sentence contributes useful context, and the examples are placed exactly where the agent will need them.

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 single-parameter documentation-fetch tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is fetched, how to obtain the path, and when to use it. The only notable gap is the absence of return-value details, which matters somewhat because there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 only specifies a required string path with no description, so the description fully compensates. It explains that the path should be the value returned by search_help and provides three concrete, realistic examples: 'nodes/sop/scatter', 'vex/functions/noise', and 'expressions/ch'. This makes the parameter unambiguous.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Fetch one page of Houdini's shipped documentation by path.' It is distinct from search_help because it consumes a path that search_help returns, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling lookup tools like get_workflow_guide or explain_node.

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 concrete usage context: consult VEX function pages before writing wrangles and expression pages before channel expressions. It also tells the agent to source the path from search_help, which is actionable, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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