cli_agent_roster

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It indicates a read-only listing of agents, but the 'demolish your work' is figurative and not misleading. It doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive, but for a display tool, the intent is clear enough.

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?

Two sentences that are efficient and front-loaded with purpose. The opening 'Know your weapons' is catchy but not wasteful. Good structure for a simple description.

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 zero-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose (listing critics and capabilities) and names examples. It doesn't detail return format, but that's acceptable given simplicity. Complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning, but it augments by listing specific agents. Baseline 4 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 clearly states it displays available CLI agent critics, their capabilities, and deployment. The verb 'display' and specific naming of agents (Claude Code, Codex, Antigravity/Agy) gives a clear resource. It differentiates from siblings like 'roast' which imply criticizing, while this is a listing tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Know your weapons' suggests it's for reference before using other tools, but it doesn't state when not to use it or mention sibling tools for further actions.

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