vibe_help

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Show', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly state that no side effects occur or describe the return format. For a help tool, the intent is clear, but it could benefit from explicitly stating that it only retrieves information.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the action and object directly, making it easy for an agent to parse. There is no redundant wording or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and the schema covers the parameter. It might benefit from a note on what the output looks like (e.g., a text guide), but the phrase 'show available /vibe commands' implies the content. Overall, the information is sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly in most cases.

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 single parameter 'topic' is fully described in the schema with a list of allowed values (commands, getting-started, troubleshooting). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description isn't required to add parameter details, and it doesn't. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 ('Show') and a specific resource ('available /vibe commands and quick start guide'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibe_status or vibe_dm. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings, leaving a small gap below a perfect score.

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 implies usage for discovering commands and getting started, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. For instance, it doesn't say 'Use this when you need command reference; use vibe_status for health checks.' The context is implied by the name and wording, but not made explicit.

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