help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it promises to return full documentation including parameters and action lists, and it notes that spelling errors automatically yield the closest tool name. This is genuinely informative without being excessive.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then lists scope, invocation, and an extra feature. The long list of tool names is necessary to define valid inputs and mirrors the schema enum without being redundant prose. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

Given a single required parameter with full enum coverage, clear annotations, and no output schema needed (the tool returns documentation), the description is complete. An agent can correctly invoke 'help' for any listed tool and know exactly what to expect. There is no missing critical context.

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 description coverage is 100%: the parameter 'tool_name' has a clear description ('要查询的工具名') and a full enum of valid values. The description reiterates the parameter's purpose but does not add significant new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('获取') and resource ('任意工具的完整文档'), making it immediately clear this is a meta-tool for retrieving documentation. It also enumerates all supported tool names to define scope and differentiates itself from sibling tools like 'docs' by being the entry point for any tool's usage details.

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 explains how to use the tool ('传 tool_name 获取该工具的详细用法、参数、action 列表') and lists the exact set of valid tool names. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'docs', but the context is clear enough that an agent would know this is the primary documentation lookup.

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