cli_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains what the tool does but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, network/read-only nature, return format, or side effects. The presence of page/pageSize hints at pagination, but the description does not confirm it.

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 gets to the point quickly. It includes a small list of command examples, which adds specificity without excessive verbosity. The structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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 reference tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain return structure, pagination behavior, or how search/category interact. An agent could call it, but would benefit from more behavioral context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters have descriptive comments in the schema. The description adds a few command examples and the concept of categories but does not explain how parameters like search or pageSize behave beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('current Terragrunt CLI command help'), and provides concrete examples of commands (--all, browse, plan, apply, hcl validate). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like function_reference and get_hcl_config_reference, which cover different reference domains.

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 usage for retrieving Terragrunt CLI command help or listing commands by category, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no comparison to siblings, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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