list_distros

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only list operation but 'mark the default' introduces uncertainty about potential side effects. It does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or what happens in edge cases (e.g., no distros installed).

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 sentence with no filler words. It conveys the main purpose and the expected output fields efficiently, though the phrase 'mark the default' could be more precise.

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 simple no-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description covers the core output (distributions, state, version) but leaves the phrase 'mark the default' unexplained, and it omits any error behavior or preconditions. It is minimally adequate but has gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but none are needed; it does not conflict with the schema.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('installed WSL distributions') and indicates the output fields (state, version). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like check_wsl_status. However, 'mark the default' is ambiguous—it could mean indicating the default or modifying it—slightly weakening clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., WSL must be installed) or contexts where this is preferable to check_wsl_status, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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