help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds content scope but no additional behavioral traits such as response format or performance characteristics; that is acceptable given the read-only annotation, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that names the deliverable ('quick operational guide and cheat-sheet') and its three content areas in sequence. Every word contributes; there is no filler or repetition.

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 read-only help-like tool with an output schema and simple optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. What keeps it from a 5 is the lack of any mention of how this differs from the get_chirak_help sibling, which an agent may need to disambiguate.

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 documents the optional topic parameter and its allowed values at 100% coverage Mend, so the agent already has parameter-level guidance. The description adds no new semantic detail about how topic influences the returned guide, so it remains at baseline.

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 states a clear purpose: a quick operational guide and cheat-sheet covering capabilities, active metrics, and recommended prompts. It uses content-specific nouns and a recognizable verb phrase ('guide and cheat-sheet'), so the agent knows what the tool returns. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_chirak_help, preventing a 5.

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 implies when to use it: when an agent needs a quick overview of Chirak store capabilities, metrics, or prompt examples. However, it offers no guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to the similarly named get_chirak_help sibling, leaving some routing ambiguity.

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