detect_current_configs

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

The description implies a read-only scan ('detects', 'returns list') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive. Given no annotations, the agent must assume safety. It adds return format but lacks details on side effects or permissions.

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 brief, with a lead sentence and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple detection tool with one parameter and an output schema (though not shown), the description covers the necessary aspects: what it detects, the optional path, and the return format. No gaps are apparent given the tool's complexity.

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 description explains the single parameter 'project_root' with default behavior ('defaults to cwd'), adding meaning beyond the schema which has no descriptions. This compensates for 0% schema coverage, though could be slightly more detailed (e.g., relative vs absolute).

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 scans for existing configuration files, listing types (shell profiles, git configs, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_profile_configs' which focus on profile configs only, and 'apply_merge' which applies changes. The verb 'detect' and noun 'configs' are specific.

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?

The description tells what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'list_profile_configs'. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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