cli_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that content comes verbatim from the engine and that a bare invocation yields the sub-command list, implying read-only, harmless behavior. It says nothing about permissions, output format/size, or whether results are cached or environment-dependent.

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?

One sentence plus a parenthetical, with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical is slightly oblique but earns its place by explaining the empty-commands case.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the gist of what is returned (usage tables). It still leaves open what an empty commands array returns, whether multiple families can be queried at once, and what the response shape looks like.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying 'per-family' to the commands array and implying that omitting commands returns the top-level sub-command list. That edge-case behavior is not expressed anywhere in the schema.

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 names the resource concretely ('per-family usage tables') and its source ('straight from the engine'), so an agent knows this fetches help/usage text rather than executing commands. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as cli, cli_batch, or command_catalog, which likely also surface command information.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of cli, cli_batch, or command_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The parenthetical describes engine behavior, not a usage rule for the agent.

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