Get remio CLI help

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, and the description adds that the CLI must be locally installed, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not disclose return format, error handling, or behavior when command is omitted, so transparency is moderate.

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 filler. Every word adds value, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 help tool, the description covers the core action but lacks details about output format, optional parameter behavior, and differentiation from remio_cli. Given no output schema, these gaps leave the description somewhat incomplete.

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 'command' parameter is an enum of CLI commands, and the description clarifies it refers to a locally installed remio CLI command. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates but doesn't explain the effect of omitting the parameter or how to use the enum values.

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 returns authoritative usage for a locally installed remio CLI command, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remio_cli, which presumably execute commands, by focusing on usage information rather than action.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like remio_cli or other command-specific tools. The use case is only implied by the tool's name and description, with no mention of scenarios or exclusions.

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