get_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that mode='check' only verifies help existence while mode='get' returns HTML text and languages, and explains object_path semantics. It does not cover error conditions or permissions, but the read-only nature is implied well enough for this tool.

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 dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers mode semantics and object_path rules. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the description covers the key behavioral distinctions and path rules. The main gap is not explaining dir_path in detail or mentioning relationship to sibling tools, but the essential calling context is present.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains mode values and object_path rules well, but the required dir_path parameter is not explicitly described beyond the overall catalog context. This is meaningful partial compensation, not complete.

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 verb ('read') and resource ('help info of an object from the raw layer of the unpack catalog'). It is distinct from set_help by orientation, but it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context for the mode parameter ('check' vs 'get') and for object_path (empty for external processing/reports, 'Type/Name' for config/extension). It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives like set_help, so no exclusions are provided.

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