vibe

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

Annotations cover key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only, deterministic operation. The description adds minimal context by implying it lists commands, but doesn't disclose details like response format or any limitations beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 'Show available /vibe commands' is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety), the description is adequate but minimal. It lacks output schema, so the description doesn't explain return values, which could be helpful for a command-listing tool. However, with good annotations and no parameters, it meets a basic threshold without being fully informative.

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 input schema has no parameters (parameter count: 0), with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce any confusion.

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 'Show available /vibe commands' clearly states the verb ('Show') and resource ('available /vibe commands'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'vibe_discover' or 'vibe_status', which might also involve command discovery or status checking, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'vibe_discover', 'vibe_status', and 'vibe_who', there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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