wsl_list_distros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the tool's safe, non-destructive nature. The description adds the return format and field details but no additional behavioral context like authentication, rate limits, or side effects, which is acceptable given strong annotations.

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 extremely concise, with a single-sentence purpose followed by a clear Returns section. It is front-loaded and free of fluff, making it easy to scan.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the output structure and fields. It does not mention behavior for empty results, but the count field implicitly handles that, so the overall description is sufficient.

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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 specifies a clear verb ('List') and resource ('installed WSL distros') and explicitly mentions the fields returned (state, version, default). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wsl_status or wsl_run.

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 does not state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool name and purpose, but there is no explicit guidance for selecting it over other WSL-related tools.

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