agent_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the tool surfaces shadowing installs and version resolution, which is real behavioral context, but it never states that the operation is read-only/side-effect free or what permissions or environment it requires. Adequate but incomplete for an unannotated tool.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first enumerates the payload, the second states the when-to-use. The key content (what you get) is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must convey the return shape itself, and it does so by listing the four result categories. It is nearly complete for a zero-arg inspection tool; only the exact structure/format of the returned inventory is left unspecified.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no arguments whose meaning could be lost, and the description correctly does not fabricate any.

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 a specific resource (agent CLIs on this machine) and enumerates exactly what the result contains: resolved binary path, version, shadowing installs, and agy MCP servers. It reads clearly as an inspection/introspection tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling agent_list, leaving that distinction to inference.

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?

"Use before spawning so you know which build you are driving" gives a concrete trigger condition tied to the sibling agent_spawn. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., agent_list) for comparison, so it falls short of the 5 level.

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