commands_list_commands

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 only 'List available commands for execution,' which is a simple read operation, but fails to disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, pagination behavior (despite a 'limit' parameter), or rate limits. The existence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description itself is insufficient.

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, which is very concise and front-loaded. It does not waste words, though it could potentially add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 four optional parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'available commands' means, how filtering works, or what the output contains. The schema and context signals help, but the description alone is incomplete for a tool that might require more context for correct usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as usage hints or inter-parameter relationships. A score of 3 is appropriate for baseline adequacy.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'available commands,' which is distinct from siblings like 'commands_describe_command' or 'commands_run_command.' However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., 'system commands' or 'Yamcs commands'), but the sibling names provide sufficient context.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'commands_describe_command' for details on a single command. The description implies listing all commands, but does not mention when not to use it or provide any alternative recommendations.

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