rba_autoexec_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Shows' and 'verifies', suggesting a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm side effects, whether it modifies anything, or what happens on hash mismatch. The description provides some transparency through the verbs, but lacks detail about output or error behavior.

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, focused sentence that states exactly what the tool does. There is no redundant information or filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Show every configured executor autoexec target') and then adds the verification aspect, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the main functionality. It explains both the listing and verification behavior. However, it could be slightly more complete by mentioning expected output format or typical usage context, but for a simple inspection tool, the description is 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it correctly omits any irrelevant parameter details.

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 a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('configured executor autoexec target'), and adds a secondary action ('verify its installed loader hash against the workspace source'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rba_install_autoexec or rba_sync_autoexec, which focus on installation or synchronization rather than inspection and verification.

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 a read/verification use case but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios. It is clear enough that it is for checking autoexec targets and hashes, but lacks direct guidance on when to choose it over related sibling tools.

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