help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. The description adds no significant behavioral detail beyond 'full documentation', but it also does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds information. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 one-parameter help tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. The only notable gap is that the sibling config__open_relay is not reflected in the topic list, which could leave an agent unsure whether that tool has separate documentation.

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 0%, so the description's topic list provides the only meaningful guidance for the topic parameter. It enumerates valid values, which is valuable, though it does not explicitly mention the default value or explain each topic's content.

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 identifies this as a documentation/help tool and specifies the available topics: understand, generate, and config. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling tools, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'displays'.

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 topic list implies that the tool should be used to retrieve documentation on those topics, but it never explicitly states when to prefer help over calling the sibling tools directly. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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