agent_help

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds a small amount of context by saying the read is on-demand and concerns topics returned by overview. It does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling or what happens for invalid topics, but the annotations already cover the read-only safety profile.

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 conveys the action, the input source, and the likely topic content with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter 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?

For a simple optional-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage context. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating that 'overview' is the default topic or by giving an example invocation, but nothing critical is missing.

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 schema provides only a default value and no description for 'topic', and schema coverage is 0%. The description partially compensates by listing example topic areas (rules, modules, host, content), but it does not give an exact enumeration or clarify whether these are the only valid values.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取' / read) and identifies the resource as a single help topic returned by overview. It hints at the topic categories (rules, modules, host, content), but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as content_read or module_describe.

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 phrase '按需读取 overview 返回的单个帮助主题' gives clear context: this tool is meant for reading one help topic after an overview has listed available topics. However, it does not state exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools for related tasks.

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