get_cli_reference

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it mirrors `smbls/CLI_FOR_MCP.md` and details the exact content areas, including error-handling contracts and anti-patterns. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'Returns' and 'Mirrors'.

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 long but each listed item adds distinct value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the single-sentence structure with a massive list could be clearer. It earns its length given the breadth of content.

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 parameters and no annotations, the description fully compensates by explaining the complete return content, including coverage areas and error contracts. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description goes beyond what is necessary.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, as none exist.

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 clearly states the tool returns the complete `smbls` CLI reference, a specific resource. It also enumerates the covered topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_sdk_reference (SDK vs CLI) and search_symbols_docs.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need the CLI reference, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or when-not scenarios.

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