help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it. The description adds that the output is a *short* guide and that scope is limited to workflow topics, but it does not say whether the result is plain text or JSON (the jmespath param implies JSON) or how large the payload is.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the text repeats itself: 'Omit topic for the overview and topic list' and 'Omit topic for the overview' appear in successive sentences, and 'short workflow guide' is stated twice. Roughly a third of the description does not earn its place.

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?

This is a simple zero-required-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, and the description correctly signals both what it returns (a short workflow guide) and how to select a topic. The only soft gap is the shape of the response, which the jmespath parameter hints at but never states.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum already enumerates all seven topics, so the description's topic list is largely redundant. The one genuinely useful cross-reference is 'Omit topic for the overview', but the schema description says the same thing. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return a short GitLab workflow guide.' It also carves out its scope against the large family of typed GitLab tools ('Detailed GitLab operations stay on the typed tools'), so an agent can tell it is a meta/help tool rather than a data-access tool.

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?

Gives a positive trigger ('Use this for a short workflow guide') and an explicit exclusion ('Detailed GitLab operations stay on the typed tools'), which is exactly the routing decision an agent faces with ~35 sibling operation tools. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative such as discover_tools, which would earn a 5.

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