Config compatibility matrix

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful data-quality context beyond that — that entries carry official doc links, a per-entry verification date, and that 'unknown' explicitly means the official docs are silent. This tells the agent how much to trust a given cell, which is the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the coverage list is front-loaded before the 'unknown' caveat. Minor deduction because it opens with a dependent clause ('Where ... read ...') instead of a subject, making the first read slightly less immediately scannable.

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 zero-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it enumerates the agents and config categories covered and hints at the record shape (doc link + verified date) plus the 'unknown' sentinel. A small gap remains around whether it returns a flat table vs. per-agent nesting, but nothing blocking is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not need to explain argument behavior at all.

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 exact resource — a cross-agent matrix of where Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor and Gemini CLI read instructions, MCP config and skills — which is concrete enough to distinguish it from convert_* and detect_agent_configs. It lacks an explicit verb ('Look up...'), so the agent must infer this is a read-only reference rather than an action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the content (doc links, verification dates) signals a static reference to consult before writing or converting config. Nothing says when to prefer this over sibling tools like detect_agent_configs (which presumably probes the local machine) or convert_mcp_config, leaving the agent to reason about the boundary itself.

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