apiclaw_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies this is a read-only help tool, but doesn't specify details like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what format the help is returned in (e.g., text, list, structured data). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 two short, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and usage without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, and the second provides context. It's appropriately sized for a simple help tool.

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 complexity (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects like output format or system requirements. For a help tool, this might be sufficient, but there's room for improvement in transparency.

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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 help and see available commands.' It specifies a verb ('Get') and resource ('help and available commands'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'capability' or 'list_capabilities', which might also provide informational outputs, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Start here if you are new to APIClaw.' This gives a specific scenario (new users) when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., for experienced users, other tools might be more appropriate), so it falls short of a score of 5.

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