tentacles

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies files, or what side effects occur. It implies an inspection-style output by listing returned information, but leaves key behavioral traits implicit. The schema mentions that check_agents runs each agent's --version, but the description does not add context about that execution or its performance impact.

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 short and front-loaded as a single semicolon-separated inventory, with no wasted sentences. However, the fragmented structure reads as a list of output categories rather than a clear statement of the tool's action or return shape.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain more about the return format, parameter effects, and safety profile. It lists categories of information but does not describe how parameters alter the result or what the agent should expect from the call.

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 description mentions none of the three parameters and adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 67%, with show_prompts undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for that gap.

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 names the resource (tentacles) and enumerates several categories of information it returns, including resolved settings, provenance, installed agents, chains, and limits. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as "list" or "get" and relies on unexplained domain jargon, leaving the core action somewhat vague. It also does not distinguish this tool from siblings like status or chain.

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 versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It merely lists what the output includes.

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