Find commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: the required scopes (commands:read or server:console), best-first result ordering, and the warning that plugin descriptions are data rather than instructions. It stops short of describing result shape or error behavior, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the resource definition and then packs in modes, permissions, and the injection caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the run-on density costs it a point versus a crisper layout.

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 read-only lookup tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is returned per record, the three calling modes, result ordering, and the permission requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 100%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the description goes further by explaining the interaction between parameters: each query is answered independently, plugin narrows the queries, and with neither supplied it counts commands per source. That is semantics the schema does not encode.

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?

It names a specific resource (the server's commands, including game, server, and plugin sources) and enumerates what each record carries: aliases, source, description, and usage. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_plugins or run_command from the text alone.

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 states an explicit operational rule — use it before run_command to learn what exists and how a command is typed — and explains the three call modes (queries, plugin, neither). That covers when to use it and how each alternative parameter shape selects a different behavior.

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