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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by explicitly stating 'The command is never executed,' which is more specific than the annotations. It also describes the style of output ('conservative, sourced'), going beyond structured metadata.

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 concise sentences, with the action verb first and a clear safety clarification. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 and no parameter descriptions, the description is the main source of guidance. It covers purpose and safety but lacks details on return format, error behavior, or parameter constraints. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.

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 description does not explain the parameters beyond implying 'command' relates to syntax. The optional 'distro' parameter is entirely omitted, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to set up a valid call.

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 ('Return') and identifies the resource ('guidance for command syntax or portability problems'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like explain_command or lint_command. The additional 'conservative, sourced' qualifier adds precision.

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 usage for command syntax or portability issues, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of sibling tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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