tool_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns full documentation including parameter reference, examples, and constraints, and lists all tools if name is omitted. It does not mention side effects or rate limits, but as a read-only documentation tool, this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and content, second gives usage instructions. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

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 help tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors. It explains what the tool returns and how to trigger different modes. Minor omission: it does not describe the output format in detail, but 'parameter reference, examples and constraints' gives adequate context.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'Pass the exact tool name (e.g. 'campaigns_add'); omit the name to list every available tool.' This provides clear semantics and behavior for the only parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get the full documentation for another tool'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that other tools 'carry only a one-line summary', emphasizing that this tool provides more comprehensive documentation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Call this BEFORE using an unfamiliar tool' and how to use with or without the name parameter. It contrasts with alternatives by implying that other tools lack full documentation.

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