arch_get_shell_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Inspect' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the listed items imply no side effects. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but for a simple inspection tool the behavior is adequately conveyed.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and the specific items inspected. Every word contributes to understanding; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no parameters and an output schema is present. The description succinctly identifies all the information categories returned, making it complete for its simple scope. No additional behavior or return details are necessary given the output schema.

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 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing exactly what aspects of shell info are inspected, which is useful context even though no parameters exist to clarify.

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 'Inspect' and clearly enumerates the resources: user default shell, PATH environment, active desktop session, and installed terminal emulators. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like arch_get_system_info, which likely covers broader system details.

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 conveys what the tool does, implying when it would be used (e.g., when needing shell/environment/session/terminal info). However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over related siblings like arch_get_system_info or arch_discover_tools, and no exclusionary context.

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