huddo_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered externally. The description usefully discloses the scope of what it returns (connection methods and the join/send/wait workflow), but says nothing about response format or whether it is static documentation versus a live-probe help. Adequate but not rich.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, leading with the imperative "Start here" and then enumerating the covered topics. Every clause earns its place and the most decision-relevant information is first.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema help tool with a read-only annotation, the description is essentially complete: it tells the agent what content it will get and that it is the entry point. Only the exact return shape (doc list vs. guide text) is undeclared, which is a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and no parameter documentation is expected or missing.

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?

States a specific verb-less but clear purpose: it is the onboarding/help entry point that enumerates every connection method (MCP, CLI, skill, llms.txt, /cmd pages) plus the core join → send → wait loop. This distinguishes it from all the operational siblings (huddo_join, huddo_send, etc.) by being the meta/docent tool rather than a chat action.

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?

"Start here" is explicit, front-loaded guidance on when to call it, which is exactly the right cue for a help tool among 28 siblings. It does not state when *not* to use it or what an already-onboarded agent should do instead, so it stops short of the exclusion-level guidance a 5 requires.

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