cli_agent_roster

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly indicates a read-only display operation. It does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, but this is acceptable for a simple listing tool.

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 sentence that quickly communicates the tool's purpose. The dramatic language ('demolish your work') may be slightly confusing but does not detract from clarity. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description adequately covers what the tool does. It could mention whether the output is a list or formatted text, but this is not critical.

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 schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately avoids redundant information.

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 displays available CLI agent critics, their capabilities, and deployment instructions. It uses a specific verb ('display') and resource ('roster'), and distinguishes from siblings which involve discovery (brutalist_discover) or actions (roast, roast_cli_debate).

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 implies using the tool to learn about available critics before deploying them, but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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