help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of providing 'documentation' is consistent but adds no new behavioral insight beyond the structured data. The description does not disclose additional traits like response size or caching behavior.

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 sentence plus a one-line action guide. It is front-loaded with the key purpose and provides a clear call-to-action, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the basic usage context. However, it could be more complete by listing all supported topics or providing examples of what the documentation contains.

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%, yet the description only vaguely mentions 'topic: 'memory' | 'config'' without explaining the parameter's meaning, allowed values, or default behavior. This adds minimal value over the schema, leaving the agent unsure about possible or valid topics.

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 that the tool provides 'Full documentation for memory and config tools' and gives detailed instructions, which unambiguously defines its purpose as a help/reference tool. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_memory or config, which are the actual tools being documented.

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 action guide explicitly says 'Use when you need detailed instructions on how to use specific server tools or features,' providing clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling tools themselves imply the alternative of directly using them.

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