Show available CLI providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add useful context by clarifying that the tool checks both installation and sign-in status for a fixed set of CLIs. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether it shells out to external processes, or what the report format looks like, so transparency is only partially addressed.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second gives a concrete use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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, empty input schema, and single clear purpose, the description is largely complete. It names the exact providers and explains why the tool would be called. It could be slightly richer about output shape, but the description's 'Report...' wording already implies a readable report, and nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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 the schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty schema. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics, and it correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a concrete resource ('which supported CLIs are installed and signed in'), and it explicitly enumerates the providers: Claude Code, Codex, and GitHub Copilot. It also ties the tool to a diagnostic relationship with predict_failures, which helps distinguish it from the sibling tools.

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 gives a clear, explicit trigger: 'Call this to diagnose why predict_failures is failing.' This is useful when-to-use guidance. It does not go as far as naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the condition is specific enough for an agent to select the tool appropriately.

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