mcdev_list_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the operation is read-only, performs no subprocess or dry run, notes there is no native mcdev dry-run mode, and clarifies that project readiness is not verified. These are substantive behavioral traits beyond what structured fields provide.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding usage contrast and behavioral caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information without padding.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete enough: it states the return-ish content (signatures, aliases, execution availability and effects), clarifies what listing does not do (no subprocess/dry run), and notes the project-readiness limitation. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not waste space on parameter semantics when none exist.

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 verb and resource ('Read-only native mcdev command discovery: signatures, aliases, execution availability and effects'), making the tool's function clear. It distinguishes itself from the execution sibling (run_mcdev_command) but does not explicitly differentiate from mcdev_get_command, which likely retrieves a single command.

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?

It names the execution alternative ('Use run_mcdev_command for supported commands with explicit arguments and ordinary host approval'), giving clear context for when to use that tool instead. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions for single-command retrieval (mcdev_get_command) or other discovery tools, leaving some alternative routing implicit.

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