list_hands

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. Clearly declares read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits. Also explains the data source (per-project kontexta.json files) and that it lists registered tools.

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, the first clearly states the purpose. The second sentence is packed with useful but slightly lengthy context. Could be broken into two shorter sentences, but still efficient and well-organized.

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, but the description fully explains what the output contains (project scope, tool name, danger level, confirmation flag, description). Also mentions source and relationship to sibling tools, making it complete for an agent.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no param info since none exist, but it does specify the fields in the output, which is helpful.

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 starts with a specific verb 'List' and resource 'every Hands command tool currently registered', then details the fields returned. It distinguishes from siblings by naming `describe_hands_schema` and `reload_hands`.

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 states when to use: 'Use to discover what side-effectful project commands the agent is permitted to run'. Also points to alternatives: `describe_hands_schema` for schema, `reload_hands` for reloading after editing.

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