mcdev_get_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior, no side effects (no approval, no process launch, not a dry run), and flags that project readiness is unverified. It also discloses the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core identity before caveats. Every clause carries information, though the final 'Project readiness remains unverified' is terse enough to be slightly ambiguous without supporting context.

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 one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content, safety profile, and next-step routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by stressing 'exact' and 'case-sensitive' lookup semantics beyond the schema's wording, though it does not explain lookup failure behavior for near-matches.

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 ('exact, case-sensitive native command or alias lookup') plus what is returned (signature, execution availability, effects). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like mcdev_list_commands (enumeration) and run_mcdev_command (execution).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use the canonical name with run_mcdev_command once supported, and the lookup itself grants no approval, launches no process, and is not a dry run. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving little to inference.

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