crystal_help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It does add one behavioral fact—that the workflow topic returns a JSON Schema attachment—which is helpful and not in the schema. Otherwise it provides no additional behavioral context (e.g., output format, whether topics overlap).

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 sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then enumerates topics. It is efficient, though the parenthetical list makes it slightly dense. No wasted clauses.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what topics exist and one special return behavior. It could mention that the output is textual guidance, but the output schema likely handles that.

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% and the schema already documents the topic enum and the default (omitted means overview). The description lists the same topics and adds the workflow-schema detail, but the schema also covers parameter semantics fully, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it returns 'short guidance for one topic' and enumerates the valid topics. However, the verb is passive ('Short guidance') and the description doesn't distinguish this help tool from siblings like crystal_status or crystal_inspect. The purpose is understandable but not sharp.

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 enumeration of topics implies when to use each, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus others (e.g., for troubleshooting vs. planning). The one usage detail—that workflow attaches the JSON Schema—is useful but not a full guideline.

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