help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the documentation is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. For a documentation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and the key information is front-loaded. It could potentially be slightly more structured by explicitly listing the parameter's purpose.

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 simple nature (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, it doesn't address what the output looks like (documentation format), whether there are any constraints or limitations, or how this differs from other informational tools in the sibling set. For a help/documentation tool, users would benefit from knowing what form the help takes.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter with its enum values and default. The description mentions 'available tools, usage patterns, SDK setup, and common workflows' which loosely maps to some enum values but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get SecureCode documentation' with specific content areas listed (tools, usage patterns, SDK setup, workflows). It uses a clear verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'SecureCode documentation'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get-status' or 'get-active-rules' which might also provide 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to understand how to help the user with SecureCode'. This gives practical guidance about the tool's intended use case. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention specific alternatives among the sibling tools for different information needs.

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