find_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load, and it does well: it discloses that only names are returned ('Returns names only'), not descriptions or options, and points to the remedy. It does not state read-only semantics explicitly, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by the query-style 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return value and followed by usage and follow-up guidance. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still clarifies that only names come back. Combined with usage triggers and glob examples, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 0% for the single pattern parameter, so the description must compensate; it does so with concrete glob examples ('*power*', 'report_*'). It stops short of describing the default or pattern syntax rules, but the examples convey the intended format.

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 precise verb+resource: returns OpenSTA command names matching a glob pattern. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_tcl and report_timing, and the glob examples make the scope immediately concrete.

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?

Gives two explicit trigger conditions ('you do not know a command's name' or 'run_tcl answered "invalid command name"') and a named follow-up action (run_tcl "help <name>"). The agent knows both when to call this and what to do next.

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