Get Tool Help

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets detailed information', implying a read-only operation, but does not specify what kind of information is returned, whether it requires specific permissions, or whether network calls are made. For a simple help tool, this is acceptable, but it could be more explicit about the nature of the information (e.g., schema, usage, parameters) and limitations.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose without fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate to convey its purpose. It does not need to explain return values because there's no output schema, and the tool's function is self-contained. However, a bit more detail on what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., parameters, examples, annotations) would round it out, but with no annotations, the description does its job sufficiently.

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 has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'toolName', with description: 'Name of the tool to get help for.' The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. According to the rubric, when schema description coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, so this is appropriate. The parameter is straightforward and self-explanatory.

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 states the tool's function: 'Gets detailed information about a specific tool.' It uses a specific verb 'gets' and resource 'detailed information about a specific tool', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list tools (list-available-tools) or describe data objects like tables, procedures, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools within the description itself, which is a minor differentiation gap.

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 provides a general sense of when to use the tool (when you need details about a tool), but it does not explicitly discuss when to use it versus alternatives. Siblings like 'list-available-tools' obviously serve a listing purpose, but there are no exclusions or explicit guidance on choosing this over other exploration tools. The utility is fairly obvious given the tool name and description, but the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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