MCP Help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, aligning with the get/list actions. The description adds context that the help content is 'schema-owned' and sourced from the same schema powering tools/list, which helps set expectations about the nature of the returned data. It doesn't delve into error handling or edge cases, but this is a simple read-only introspection tool.

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 extremely efficient: two lines, one for each action, each with a terse definition and a concrete call example. There is no filler or repetition. The format is scannable and immediately conveys the tool's interface.

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 tool with a simple two-parameter interface and clear examples, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The nested payload structure is demonstrated, and the output format is managed by the schema. No additional context is necessary for a tool of this complexity.

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% and the schema already defines all parameters (action, payload, target, format). The description enriches understanding by providing inline examples of valid payload structures (e.g., payload={'target':'mcp.tool.collection','action':'insert'}) and by clarifying the relationship between target/action and the get/list operations. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 identifies two distinct actions ('get' and 'list') with explicit verbs and resources ('Return the full schema-owned help page' and 'List schema-owned help actions'). It includes concrete examples that show exactly how to invoke each operation, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (to retrieve help documentation) and provides usage examples for both actions. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but given the sibling tools are all domain tools, the help tool's role is self-evident. A small gap is not mentioning that this tool is for exploring schemas rather than executing actions.

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