pageRender tldr page for a command.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| language | No | ISO 639-1, default "en". | |
| platform | No | common (default) | linux | osx | windows | android | sunos | freebsd |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Rendered markdown content of the tldr page | |
| command | Yes | The command name | |
| language | Yes | ISO 639-1 language code | |
| platform | Yes | Platform (common, linux, osx, windows, android, sunos, freebsd) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "command": "ls"
+ },
+ {
+ "command": "grep",
+ "language": "en",
+ "platform": "linux"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Rendered markdown content of the tldr page",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "command": {
+ "description": "The command name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "language": {
+ "description": "ISO 639-1 language code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "platform": {
+ "description": "Platform (common, linux, osx, windows, android, sunos, freebsd)",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "command",
+ "platform",
+ "language",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds 'Render tldr page', which is consistent but does not provide behavioral details beyond what annotations convey.
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?
Single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every word is necessary.
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, an output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the 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 67%; the 'command' parameter lacks a description. The tool description 'for a command' clarifies that this parameter expects a command name, adding meaning beyond the schema. Language and platform descriptions are provided in 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 clearly states the tool's action ('Render tldr page') and its target ('for a command'). This is specific and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which cover different domains.
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 implicitly indicates when to use: when a user wants a tldr summary of a command. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique purpose, it's sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.