solution_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool returns a signature and full description, or a not-found message for invalid keywords—important for setting expectations. It also enumerates the exact families of keyword types covered, providing concrete behavioral scope. It does not explicitly claim to have no side effects, but the return-based wording implies a read-only lookup.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by compact coverage details, a usage pointer, and an Args section. Each sentence adds value—there's no filler or redundancy. The line breaks and sections (Covers, Use, Args, Returns) make it scannable and effectively sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Considering the tool's modest complexity (2 string params, no annotations, output schema present), the description covers purpose, scope, prerequisite usage, parameter details, and return behavior. It also addresses the error case (not-found). The existence of an output schema covers return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail that further. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema provides only names/types with no descriptions, so the parameter meaning rests entirely on the description. The Args section explains each parameter with allowed values for program (enumerating all six variants) and explicit examples for keyword (TREF, -a, SAD), adding substantial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+object ('Return the signature and description for one SHELX solution keyword'), precisely identifying the tool's function. It further distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating the covered programs/keyword types and referencing list_solution_keywords, making clear it's the detailed-lookup counterpart to that listing tool.

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 explicit context for when to use this tool: after discovering valid names via list_solution_keywords, which is named as a prerequisite. It also clearly scopes the tool to solution keywords (shelxs/shelxd/shelxt/shelxc/shelxe), implicitly excluding other command help. However, it doesn't explicitly state 'use command_help for non-solution commands,' so it's slightly short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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