Workflow Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe read. The description adds valuable context: 'Responses include hints with next_actions and related_tools.' This reveals response structure beyond the tool's safety, which is helpful for agent planning.

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 concise: three short sentences covering purpose, usage, sections, and response hints. It's front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and response structure. Combined with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the tool is fully specified for agent invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'section', with a detailed description ('Optional section to focus the response...') already present in the schema. The description mentions sections but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 provides workflow guidance for InsideOut infrastructure tools. It differentiates between a compact overview (no args) and detailed guides with specific sections (workflow, tools, examples, inspect). This distinguishes it from sibling operational tools like awsinspect or tfdeploy.

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 tells when to use: 'Call help() for a compact overview, or help(section=...) for a detailed guide.' It also lists available sections. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use, the context of sibling tools (all operational) makes its purpose clear. A minor improvement would be to mention it's for seeking guidance rather than performing actions.

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