command_info

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that lookup is via PATH and that curated commands return category, summary, and version metadata, but says nothing about failure modes, non-existent commands, or response shape for uncatalogued names.

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, with the core action front-loaded and the extra metadata behavior following. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations, the description covers the primary action and hints at the return content (availability plus metadata for curated commands). It is nearly complete, though the exact output shape for uncurated commands remains implicit.

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% and the single 'names' parameter is already fully documented as an array of CLI command names via PATH lookup. The description adds no syntax, constraint, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Inspect whether named CLI commands are available on the VM.' This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like exec (which runs commands) or process_* tools. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast its role, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 a pre-flight use case (checking command availability before invoking something like exec), but never states when to use it, when not to, or what the alternative is. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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