get_previs_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful clarification that it will not trigger scene execution, which guards against a plausible wrong expectation, but says nothing about the nature or size of the returned help content.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the scope limitation is stated immediately after the purpose. Only minor cost is the vague 'Orientação assistida' phrasing occupying the front-loaded position.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the help actually contains and how it differs from the many other guidance-style siblings. It does not do that, leaving the agent able to call it safely but not confidently.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies.

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?

It indicates the tool returns guidance about how MCP PREVIS-DIRECTOR works and adds the negative scope 'Não executa cenas', but 'Orientação assistida' is vague about what the agent actually gets back (documentation text? an overview?). It never differentiates itself from closely related siblings such as get_previs_system_prompt or get_phase_instructions.

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?

There is one exclusion ('does not execute scenes') but no positive when-to-use signal, no mention of when the agent should prefer this over get_previs_system_prompt, get_previs_update_notes, or get_phase_instructions. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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