get_command_whitelist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: it is an inspection operation ('Show'), and execution semantics are argv-level with no shell. It does not state permissions, side effects, or response format, but for a simple getter the key behavioral trait is covered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The resource and critical scoping constraint ('argv-level whitelist, no shell') appear immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly. It does not describe the exact return structure, but the core semantics are complete enough for this simple operation.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description appropriately does not invent any.

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 uses the specific verb 'Show' with the precise resource 'which commands the local agent's run_command tool may execute,' and it adds the key scope 'argv-level whitelist, no shell.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling update_command_whitelist, which would mutate rather than inspect the whitelist.

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: an agent would use this to inspect the effective command whitelist for run_command. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings such as update_command_whitelist or run_local_agent, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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