hands_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, and explains data provenance (per-project kontexta.json loaded at register time). It also discloses that schema mode returns a static document unrelated to any registered hand, a non-obvious behavioral trait.

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?

Front-loads what the default mode returns, then the schema-mode override, then safety notes and routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical enumeration of schema contents is long and could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned fields for list mode and characterizes the schema-mode payload, so an agent knows what it will receive. Safety, provenance, and routing are all covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: that the schema output is a static authoring reference (JSON schema, validation rules, security guarantees, limitations, example) and is unrelated to any specific registered hand, plus motivation for when to set it true.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('List every Hands command tool currently registered') and enumerates the projected fields (project scope, tool name, danger level, confirmation flag, description). It also distinguishes the dual mode from siblings like hands_reload and hands_confirm by naming them.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: default mode to discover side-effectful project commands, `schema: true` when helping a user author or fix a kontexta.json, and `hands_reload` after editing one. Covers when-to-use for both modes and names the follow-up alternative.

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