list_hands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits', and explains the data source (per-project kontexta.json files), providing complete behavioral disclosure.

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 compact yet information-dense: purpose, source, safety, usage guidance, and pointers to related tools are all included in three sentences with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the fields returned and fully explains the tool's role, safety profile, and relationship to siblings. It is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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 has zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage), so there are no params to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate; description adds no parameter-specific info but isn't needed.

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 states 'List every Hands command tool currently registered' with precise output fields (project scope, tool name, danger level, confirmation flag, description), and distinguishes itself from siblings like reload_hands and describe_hands_schema.

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?

It clearly explains when to use this tool ('discover what side-effectful project commands the agent is permitted to run') and points to alternatives: 'see describe_hands_schema' for schema and 'reload_hands' after editing.

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