hsm_list_commands

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says the tool works without AWS credentials and describes the listing/filtering behavior. It does not disclose details like pagination or output format, but for a read-only discovery tool the provided context is strong.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and organized into a purpose paragraph followed by a concise argument list. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance with 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?

For a two-optional-parameter listing tool, the description provides enough context to select and invoke it correctly. It covers the tool's purpose, parameter semantics, and authentication expectation. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the description making the return concept clear, though explicit output structure or pagination notes would make it 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?

The schema provides only parameter names with no descriptions or enums, so the description fully compensates. It enumerates valid values for category (PIN, MAC, CVV, KEY_MGMT, ENCRYPT, ARQC, P2PE) and vendor (Futurex, Thales), and explains the omit-for-all default behavior for both.

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 states a specific action: discover known HSM commands and their APC operation mappings. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like hsm_lookup_command or hsm_get_apc_mapping by framing it as a discovery/list operation rather than a single-command or mapping lookup.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: migration scoping, HSM integration review, and deciding which APC operations a proxy handler must implement. It also notes that no AWS credentials are required. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when to prefer them.

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