m2_help

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates a read-only documentation lookup, but does not mention what the output looks like, whether it returns text or opens a viewer, or whether any side effects (e.g., session state changes) occur. For a simple help tool this is a minor gap, but it is still undisclosed behavior.

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 with the core purpose, followed immediately by a parameter explanation with examples. Every sentence contributes information, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter help tool, the description covers the main needs: what it does and what the argument means. It lacks explicit return-value information, but the presence of an output schema partially fills that gap. Overall it is nearly complete for such a simple tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines the only parameter 'topic' as a 'documentation entry point' and gives concrete examples ('groebnerBasis', 'resolution', 'HilbertPolynomial', 'Package'). This adds meaningful guidance beyond the bare schema, though it does not enumerate all valid entries or format rules.

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 ('Look up'), a clear resource ('Macaulay2 documentation'), and the scope of topics ('function, class, or concept'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like m2_evaluate or m2_run_script, which are about execution rather than documentation.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: use this when you need documentation for a Macaulay2 symbol. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or context such as 'use m2_list_packages to discover available packages'.

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