Omarchy application defaults

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'Read' and adds the behavioral note 'No selectors or applications are launched', which reassures the agent about side effects. This is more transparent than a bare read description and covers the key behavioral aspect.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the safety note. This is ideal conciseness.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is read and explicitly states that nothing is launched. The only omission is the return format, but for a read-only defaults tool this is unlikely to hinder correct invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4 as per the rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific info because there are none, but it doesn't need to. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), so nothing is missing.

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 verb 'Read' is specific and the resource is clearly enumerated: 'current browser, editor, terminal, and coding-agent defaults plus locally available supported choices'. This distinguishes it from its sibling 'omarchy_default_set' which likely sets defaults. The description is unambiguous and captures the tool's scope.

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 this is for reading defaults, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus other tools, such as 'omarchy_default_set' for changing defaults. It provides no exclusions or alternative suggestions. For a simple read-only tool, the guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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