run_safe_command__help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. The verb 'Show' implies a non-mutating, informational tool, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it is read-only. It also does not mention any permissions or rate limits, which is a gap for a help tool.

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 extremely concise: one clear declarative sentence followed by two compact parameter lines. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose before parameter details.

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 help tool with two optional parameters, the description covers its purpose and parameter semantics sufficiently. However, it does not describe the output format or what happens when no topic is provided, which would be useful for an agent to know what to expect.

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 @param annotations in the description provide meaningful guidance for both parameters: topic is explained as optional and lists valid filter values (execute, audit, healthz, security), and __mcp_response_mode is described with its options and default. This adds substantial value since the input schema has no property descriptions (0% schema description coverage).

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 opens with a specific verb ('Show') and names the resource ('usage and safety model for run_safe_command tools'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which perform actual commands like execution, auditing, or health checks.

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 establishes that this tool provides help specifically for run_safe_command tools, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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