commands_describe_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool returns detailed information including arguments, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or specifics about the output beyond arguments.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, very concise and front-loaded. However, it is borderline under-specified, missing some details that would improve clarity.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no annotations, an output schema (which reduces need for explaining returns), the description is minimally adequate but lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only mentioning that arguments are included in the output. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 clearly states the tool gets detailed information about a command including arguments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like commands_list_commands (list) and commands_run_command (run) by focusing on detailed info for a specific 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?

The description implies usage when detailed info about a command is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like commands_list_commands or commands_run_command. No exclusions or context provided.

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