info_tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool consolidates operations, is separate from MCP, and behaves differently in testing mode. It also notes that schemas are auto-generated. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, though that is implied by its nature.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses bullet points under the 'action' parameter to detail each operation. The note at the end is important and doesn't waste words. Every sentence adds value, making it easy to scan for an agent.

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 (multiple actions, optional parameters, and an output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return values for each action, explains the testing mode distinction, and provides valid parameter values. No significant gaps are apparent.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial value beyond the schema. For the 'action' parameter, it explains each enum value's purpose, required parameters, and what the tool returns. For optional parameters like 'category' and 'search', it provides valid values and usage context. This greatly aids an agent in selecting the correct action and parameters.

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 explicitly states that the tool is a 'Comprehensive tool discovery and help portmanteau tool' that provides information about available tools, their operations, and usage. It clearly differentiates itself from the MCP protocol's native tools/list method, establishing a distinct purpose from sibling management tools.

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 explicit usage guidance: it explains that the tool is for app-specific help content and detailed introspection, separate from MCP's native tools/list. It also details each action and when to use them, including required parameters and optional filters. This clear differentiation helps an agent choose correctly.

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