get_contam_program_help

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('usage text') and implies read-only discovery behavior, but lacks explicit safety statements, format details, or side effect warnings. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the 'Use this when...' trigger, immediately followed by what is retrieved ('built-in command-line usage text'), for what target ('CONTAM executable'), and contextual purpose ('before deciding which tool').

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?

Appropriate for tool complexity: explains what is returned despite lack of output schema, identifies the executable parameter, and establishes workflow context. Could improve by listing the specific supported executables or describing the text format returned.

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 has 0% description coverage with four enum values (contamx, prjup, simread, simcomp) undocumented. Description references 'CONTAM executable' which maps to the 'program' parameter, providing conceptual semantics, but fails to explain what each enum value represents or their differences.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'built-in command-line usage text' identifies the exact resource, 'CONTAM executable' identifies the target, and the help-seeking purpose clearly distinguishes this from action-oriented siblings like run_contam_simulation or upgrade_contam_project.

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?

Strong guidance with 'Use this when...' framing and explicit workflow positioning ('before deciding which tool or arguments to use'). Would score 5 if it explicitly named specific sibling tools as alternatives to avoid, but effectively signals this is a prerequisite discovery step.

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