get_wiki_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions that URLs are returned but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or the effect of the limit parameter (default 50). The claim 'List all' may be inconsistent with the limit parameter.

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 with no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides a clear pointer to a sibling tool for more detail.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers the primary action and directs to a sibling for details. However, it could mention that the output includes a list of command names and URLs, which is implied but not explicit.

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 the schema already documents the limit parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond clarifying that it lists commands from the wiki; it does not explain how the limit parameter behaves or its default.

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 lists all Minecraft commands from the wiki with their URLs, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_wiki_command_info which provides detailed syntax.

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 mentions an alternative for detailed syntax (get_wiki_command_info), providing clear guidance on when to use that tool instead. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other list tools like spyglass_get_commands.

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