cli

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses that destructive commands need '--yes' to skip confirmation, and suggests adding '--json' for machine-readable output. It warns against including 'anythink' or '--profile'. While it doesn't detail error handling, it covers key behavioral traits for a generic CLI runner.

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, well-organized paragraph. It starts with purpose, then usage guidance, followed by examples and important notes. Every sentence adds value; no unnecessary repetition.

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 complexity as a generic CLI runner, the description covers boundaries, examples, and important flags. With no output schema, it mentions returning output. Could mention potential errors or timeouts, but overall sufficiently complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with a detailed parameter description that matches the tool description. The tool description adds extra usage examples and context (destructive commands, --json flag) beyond the schema, enriching understanding.

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 runs any Anythink CLI command and returns output. It specifies the tool is for commands not covered by dedicated tools, listing examples like 'entities list' and 'data list posts', which distinguishes it from 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this for commands not covered by dedicated tools' and lists those tools (entities, fields, data, etc.). Provides examples and context for menu commands, making usage clear.

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