config_listremotes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that all remote names are returned and implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose edge cases (e.g., empty config file), authentication requirements, or whether the list reflects only the persistent config. For a straightforward list command, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two parts: a succinct purpose ('List configured remotes') and an explanatory clause. No wasted words, easy to scan.

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 (no required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough: it names the action, the resource, and the return type. It does not need to elaborate further, though it could mention formatting (e.g., array vs. newline-delimited).

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 already fully describes both parameters (_async and _group) with high coverage (100%). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'configured remotes' and explicitly states the return value: 'names of all remotes defined in the config file.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like config_get (which likely retrieves specific config) and operations_* 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. It does not mention config_get for details on a single remote, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and description.

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