cli_versions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating what is reported (versions, availability, login status). No additional behavioral traits are disclosed, but annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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?

A single, dense sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and enumerates the providers. No extraneous words or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It could hint at output format or typical use cases, but it is not incomplete for a straightforward status reporting tool.

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% and the single parameter 'cli' is thoroughly described in the schema with an enum of providers and a description. The tool description only reiterates 'or one', adding no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reports installed provider CLI versions, availability, and login status for all or one of the listed providers. It explicitly enumerates the supported providers, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 indicates the tool can be used for all providers or a specific one. While it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cli_upgrade or provider-specific request tools, the purpose is self-evident and no exclusion criteria are needed for a simple reporting tool.

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