CommandVault

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: template variables are substituted, and unfilled variables are surfaced so the agent can prompt the user. That output-adjacent behavior is valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no waste; the core action is front-loaded and the templating caveat follows 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the response contains (filled text plus a list of unfilled variables). Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior for unknown slugs, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description only echoes the variable-substitution concept and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full text of a command by slug') and clarifies the templating behavior, which distinguishes it from search_commands (which returns listings). It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so it falls short of the top mark.

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: retrieve a command once you have a slug, and supply variables to fill blanks. The slug parameter schema points to search_commands for discovery, but the description itself names no alternatives or explicit when-not conditions.

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

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context that collections are curated starter kits and that a slug returns the commands within one, but it does not cover pagination, return format, or other behavioral details.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording. The examples are compact and directly support understanding of what a collection is.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description covers both modes of use adequately. It could be slightly more explicit about the default list behavior when no slug is provided, but no critical information is missing.

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%, so the slug parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces its meaning by explaining that a slug retrieves commands in a specific collection, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource as curated collections, gives concrete examples, and explains the dual behavior: listing collections by default and returning commands when a slug is supplied. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as search_commands or list_communities.

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 implies when to use the optional slug parameter, but it does not state when to call this tool instead of alternatives like search_commands or trending_commands. Usage is inferable but not explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new information by specifying the returned fields (slug and command count), which matters because there is no output schema; it does not, however, mention ordering or whether the list is paginated.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and then the payload. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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?

With zero parameters, no output schema, and safety already covered by annotations, the description supplies the key missing piece: what each record contains. Only minor details like result ordering or size limits are absent.

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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional and needs no input.

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?

Names a specific resource (CommandVault communities) and states exactly what each entry contains: slug and command count. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_collections and search_commands, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the name rather than stated.

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 only implied: this is the unfiltered enumeration of communities, so an agent can infer it should call this when it needs the full community list. There is no explicit when-not guidance or mention of list_collections as the alternative for a different resource.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are slugs only, not full command content, requiring a follow-up get_command call — important since no output schema exists. It stops short of mentioning result caps or pagination behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero waste. The scope statement is front-loaded and the downstream-call hint follows immediately, so an agent gets purpose and next step in one pass.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of stating what comes back (slugs). All parameters are optional, so no required-arg gaps exist. Missing only sorting/pagination expectations and when to prefer trending_commands, which leaves a small but real gap.

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 67%, with tag, kind, and query documented inline, while sort and limit have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., how tag/kind/query combine, or that limit caps at 25), so it neither compensates for the gaps nor adds over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search CommandVault's library of AI commands') and enumerates the concrete artifact types covered (prompts, CLAUDE.md templates, Cursor rules, slash commands, subagents). It also distinguishes itself from the retrieval sibling by noting it returns slugs to pass to get_command.

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 establishes the search-then-fetch workflow with get_command, which is a real usage cue. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like trending_commands, list_collections, or list_communities, and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds genuine value by explaining the ranking signal (copying, running, voting), but it omits ordering guarantees, pagination, and what a result entry contains.

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 filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the unanswered questions about return shape and the limit parameter.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally sufficient. It still leaves the agent guessing about return format, ranking order, and the meaning of 'this week' relative to the limit parameter, which the absent output schema would otherwise have covered.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'limit' parameter (default 10, max 25) is never referenced in the description. With only one parameter the burden is low, but the description does nothing to explain whether limit caps ranked results or affects the trending computation.

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 gives a concrete resource ('the commands') and a clear qualifier ('trending... this week'), which an agent can readily distinguish from get_command (single lookup) and search_commands (query-driven). It stops short of saying explicitly that it returns a ranked list, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over search_commands or list_collections, and no mention of prerequisites or result semantics. The only implicit usage cue is 'this week', which hints at a fixed time window but never states it as a selection rule.

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