get_chirak_help

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true)Skip? Actually readOnly=true; description discloses the return content: a guide, cheat-sheet, store context, and prompt patterns. This adds useful detail without contradicting the annotation. It doesn't describe errors or edge cases, but for a help tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns. Minor redundancy in 'complete operational guide'/'operational cheat-sheet' but no wasted content.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only help tool with an output schema, the description gives enough context about content areas and invocation triggers. It doesn't enumerate all outputs, but the output schema 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 covers 100% of the single optional parameter with its allowed topics. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies this as the route to a complete operational guide for the Chirak store, including capabilities, cheat-sheet, store context, and prompt patterns. It is more specific than the generic sibling 'help', so an agent can distinguish its scope, though the phrase 'store features' is broad.

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 explicitly says to call it 'whenever the user or agent needs help, guidance, or wants to explore store features,' giving a clear general trigger. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'help' tool or state when NOT to use it, so the guidance lacks exclusion criteria.

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