HIG help

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it 'shows' help. It does not disclose the return format, whether the output is static or topic-dependent, or any read-only nature. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

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 efficient, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is terse but appropriate to a simple help command, though it leaves room for a short clause about scope.

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 zero-parameter help tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete: it never mentions what the help content covers, whether HIG-specific guidance differs from sibling tools, or what the agent receives back.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics to document or compensate for.

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+resource ('Show how to use the HIG design commands and tools'), making it clear this is the general help entry point. It distinguishes itself implicitly from the functional siblings (search_hig, get_topic, guide_interface) by being the help/orientation tool, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to invoke help versus the five sibling tools, nor any prerequisite or trigger condition. An agent must infer that this is a general orientation command rather than something tied to a specific query.

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