Get Usage Guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a read-only documentation tool the risk surface is small. It does disclose the set of valid topic values, which is real behavioral information; however, it never states that the call is non-destructive, whether unknown topics error, or what the default (null) topic yields.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the topic list; no filler. The raw enumeration is dense but each token is the valid input value, so it earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be described. Still missing for a zero-annotation, zero-coverage-parameter tool: behavior on omitted or invalid topic, and any hint of when this guidance is worth fetching.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single topic parameter has no schema description, no enum, and accepts any string. The description partially compensates by enumerating the valid topic names (overview, shortcuts, text_entry, failures, ledger, safety, stop, efficiency, full), but it does not say which topic is default or what happens for an unrecognized value.

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 states what the tool returns ('How to use this server well') and enumerates the available topics, so an agent knows this is a self-documentation/help lookup rather than an action tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like capabilities or supports, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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?

Usage is implied by 'How to use this server well' — call it when guidance is needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no indication of when to call this versus capabilities/supports, and no note that it is safe to call speculatively.

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