get_support_info

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description specifies that 'No parameters required' and describes the return content (office hours, contact methods, links to support resources). This provides practical usage information that annotations don't cover.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It starts with the core purpose, adds details about what information it provides, explicitly states the parameter situation, and describes returns. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters), comprehensive annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, what information it returns, and the parameter situation. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond the high-level summary it provides.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description explicitly states 'No parameters required', which adds clarity beyond the empty schema. This confirms the tool's simplicity and eliminates any ambiguity about whether parameters might be needed.

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 specific verb 'Get' and resource 'information about how to get support from UAB Research Computing', including what information it provides (contact information, office hours, support channels). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_documentation_page or search_documentation by focusing specifically on support information rather than general documentation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when needing support information for UAB Research Computing services). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, though the distinction is implied through the different resource types.

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