help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full weight. 'Get help information' implies a read-only, harmless operation, but it does not disclose any specific behaviors such as the format of returned help text, potential errors, or whether it depends on command types. This is acceptable for a simple help tool but lacks depth.

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 a single concise sentence that is directly to the point. It has no fluff or redundant information, making it highly 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?

For a simple help tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks details about acceptable values for 'type', the nature of the help output, and any examples. This leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 100% with the parameter 'type' described as '命令类型' (command type). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema is complete, the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 '获取命令的帮助信息' (Get help information for commands) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like executeCommand and queryCommands by focusing on help, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like queryCommands or executeCommand. There is no context about prerequisites, expected usage, or exclusions.

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