Frontend stack info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves info via a command. No disclosure of side effects (likely read-only), data sources, or potential latency. Minimal behavioral context is given.

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 concise and front-loaded with key info in a single sentence. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate what it does from constraints).

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source. It lacks details about the output format or what exactly 'Theme/Vite/npm info' includes. With many sibling tools, more specific content would help the agent decide correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by specifying the type of information (Theme, Vite, npm) and the underlying command, which helps the agent understand the tool's scope without needing parameters.

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 explicitly mentions 'Theme/Vite/npm info' and the command 'pinx fe:info', clearly indicating the tool provides frontend stack information. The qualifier '(single-app only)' helps distinguish from multi-app scenarios, though it could be more detailed about the exact resource.

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 use for single-app frontend info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'project_info' or 'read_app_manifest'. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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