help_me

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the actual content returned: capability inventory, token-cost information, and example requests. That is meaningful disclosure beyond the name. It stops short of stating whether the output is static or account-specific and doesn't explicitly confirm it is side-effect-free, though a 'help' tool implies read-only.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and then enumerates the payload contents. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and nothing extraneous for a zero-argument 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and zero parameters remove any argument ambiguity. The description is adequate for a simple discovery tool, with only the omission of a clear invocation trigger keeping it short of complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description's mention of token costs and example requests correctly implies the caller supplies no arguments and receives a bundled informational payload.

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?

States a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('everything ReviewMetric can do in Claude'), plus the two content areas it covers: token costs and example requests. An agent can tell this apart from the operational siblings (search_atlas, submit_manuscript, account_status) without opening the schema, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent would infer 'call this when onboarding or when unsure what ReviewMetric offers or what consumes tokens.' There is no explicit trigger condition, no 'use this before X' guidance, and no mention of whether it should be called first in a session.

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