show_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's safe (no destructive effects), requires no database, and returns guidance. However, it doesn't specify format, length, or potential rate limits, leaving some gaps in behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines and safety note. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and safety. However, without an output schema, it could briefly mention the type of guidance returned (e.g., text or structured data), leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by implying no inputs are required, aligning with the schema. Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, as it appropriately handles the lack of parameters.

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 with specific verbs ('Return a quick setup and usage guide') and resource ('for Ariadne'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on help/guidance rather than operations like querying, expanding, rating, or rescanning.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Call this first when you are unsure how to use Ariadne, how to index your own microservices, or why query_chains returned no results') and when it's safe ('Always safe to call — no DB required'), effectively differentiating it from alternatives like query_chains for troubleshooting.

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