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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool lists only permitted commands based on role permissions, which implies a read-only, permission-filtered operation. However, it does not specify what happens when there are no allowed commands, whether the list is static or dynamic, or what the response format is. These gaps are minor for a simple listing tool but not entirely absent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds essential scoping information. There is no redundant phrasing or filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 listing tool, the description is nearly complete. It identifies the resource, the permission filter, and the actor. The absence of an output schema means the return value format is not formally documented, but the name and description make it evident that a list of slash commands is returned. This is a minor gap, not a blocking one.

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 zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, the description does not need to add parameter detail. The description's role-scoping context is still useful but not necessary for parameter understanding.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('/questa:* slash commands'), and further scopes it by 'the current user' and 'Blackbox role permissions'. It fully distinguishes the tool's purpose from the unrelated siblings anonymize_document and redact_pii.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to discover which /questa:* slash commands the current user may run. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools have completely different purposes, so no confusion is likely. The context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool correctly.

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