ai_cli_status

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 describes the return value (manual paths and auto-discovered binaries) and hints at failure handling. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only status tool this is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states what it does, second explains return content and provides actionable guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior well. It explains what is returned and suggests a related tool for configuration. It could mention the exact format of the output, but overall it's complete enough.

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 tool has no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter semantics since there are none. Baseline is 4.

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 shows whether Claude Code/Codex CLIs are available, using a specific verb 'Show' and resource 'availability of CLIs'. It also mentions what it returns (paths and auto-discovered binaries), which differentiates it from siblings like manage_env.

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 says 'Show whether ... are available' and provides a fallback to manage_env for configuration. It implies when to use (checking CLI availability), but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparison to other tools. However, the guidance is clear for its purpose.

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