blackbox_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the response shape ('concise reference', JSON {ok, help}) and that it is a documentation-style lookup with no stated side effects. It adds no context about auth requirements, rate limits, or caching, so it is adequate but thin for a zero-annotation 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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the text is short. The trailing 'Returns: JSON: {ok, help}' block is largely redundant given that an output schema already exists, costing a little conciseness.

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, zero-parameter help tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, audience, and the nature of the response. The only gap is not positioning it against the overlapping list_capabilities/blackbox_status siblings.

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, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty argument object.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Explain BlackBox capabilities and how an agent should use them', plus the audience (MCP clients including Zed). However, it does not differentiate itself from similar siblings such as list_capabilities or blackbox_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a self-description tool.

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?

It implies the trigger ('understand what BlackBox can do without external documentation'), which is usable guidance, but never states when to prefer this over list_capabilities or blackbox_status, nor any exclusion conditions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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