list_cli_agents

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

The description transparently reports that the tool lists commands and whether they are on PATH. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately covers behavioral expectations. It could be improved by explicitly stating it's a read-only operation, but the action is clear.

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 extraneous information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (presumably documenting return format), the description is mostly adequate. However, the missing parameter documentation is a notable gap that reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'extra_commands' parameter. The agent cannot infer that this parameter allows adding custom commands to check, leaving its purpose ambiguous.

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 lists known CLI agent commands and checks their availability on PATH. The verb 'list' and resource 'CLI agent commands' are specific, and the purpose distinctly differs from sibling tools which focus on task management.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives is provided. However, the distinct purpose from sibling tools implies usage context, but the description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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