help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the return content (detailed usage, parameters, action list) and the spelling correction feature that suggests the closest tool name, which is valuable.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose before the lengthy list of tool names. The list is useful and the sentence is efficient, with no filler. It is slightly long due to the enumeration but justified by the need to show available tools.

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?

With a single parameter, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and even a bonus feature (spelling correction). It is complete for a simple help tool, though it doesn't specify the response format in detail.

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 coverage is 100% with the enum and description for tool_name, so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds context about what the parameter is used for (getting docs) and lists the available tools, but this is redundant with the enum and does not add significant semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取任意工具的完整文档' (get complete documentation for any tool), with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'docs', which could also be documentation-related, so it misses the sibling distinction criterion for 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 explains how to use it (pass tool_name to get usage, parameters, action list), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it. The context is implied by the verb '获取' but there are no explicit guidelines or exclusions.

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