cb_options

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 does not state whether this is a safe read operation, whether it returns parsed configuration, or whether it has side effects. The only behavioral clue is the reference to options.conf, which is not enough.

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 short and front-loaded with the resource name, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a complete statement of purpose. Conciseness is fine; the issue is that it omits the verb and any meaningful context.

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?

While the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description still fails to explain the core operation. With many CustomBuild-related siblings present, the agent cannot reliably distinguish whether this tool fetches options, edits them, or reports their state. The missing action is a significant gap.

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 schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter detail.

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 'CustomBuild options (options.conf)' largely restates the tool name without stating an action. It identifies the resource but does not say whether the tool reads, writes, validates, or edits those options. The filename in parentheses adds mild context but does not clarify the operation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cb_options_update, cb_state, or cb_run. The description does not mention read-only use, configuration changes, or any exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer intent from the name alone.

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