Help Text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool intentionally omits a command list and points to `tools/list` as the source of truth, which is helpful behavioral context. However, it does not specify what the response format will be, and given the output schema exists, the agent might expect some structure but the description doesn't clarify.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. It is concise with no redundant sentences. It might be slightly abstract for a non-technical agent, but the content is efficient.

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 has no parameters, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It explains the purpose, mentions the alternative for tool listing, and is clear about the intentional omission. The output schema existence might give some clues about the response structure, so the description doesn't need to detail it.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, which is trivially complete. The description adds value by explaining what the tool does not do (doesn't list commands) and what it does (explains workflow and points to tools/list). This exceeds the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.

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: providing help on how to work and where to find the tool list. It explicitly says it does not contain a command list, which distinguishes it from a generic help tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implies when to use this tool: when the user needs help on workflow or where to find tools. It explicitly says that for a list of tools, one should use `tools/list`, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not state when not to use this tool beyond that.

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