ds_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the two modes (empty vs. specified category), the return structure ({category, name, tools, workflow, hint}), and that it is a read-only guide. This is adequate for a non-mutating tool, though it does not address potential side effects (none likely) or deeper behavior.

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 longer than a single sentence, but the category list is essential for usefulness and is well-organized under 'Available categories.' The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections add structure. Every line serves a purpose, though a shorter version could omit the detailed category descriptions and still function.

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 its simple one-parameter nature and lack of output schema, the description explains input and output sufficiently. It covers the full set of available categories and the return format for both cases. Marked down slightly because the exact semantics of the 'tools' and 'workflow' fields in the result are not described, but this is minor 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by defining the 'category' parameter, listing valid values, and explaining that an empty string returns all categories. This gives the agent enough to choose and pass a category correctly, though it could explicitly state the parameter is optional.

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 uses a specific verb 'guide' and identifies the resource as 'DolphinScheduler MCP tools.' It clearly differentiates this tool from siblings by framing it as the central navigation/help index, and it lists all categories, making its scope explicit.

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?

It provides clear usage guidance: call without arguments to see categories, or with a category name to get tools/workflows. The category list itself serves as a map to alternatives, implying when to use this tool (for orientation) vs. other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative, which keeps it just below a 5.

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