get_commands

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the purpose and does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, error conditions, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that queries a server.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and object. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what the tool does and what resource it queries. However, it does not mention any return format or additional context, and the lack of usage guidelines prevents a perfect score. Overall, it is sufficient for a basic read operation.

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 input schema already provides a full description for the sole required parameter (api_key: 'API key of the server to query'), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no additional information about how the parameter is used, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Get list of all registered server commands' – a specific verb ('get') and resource ('all registered server commands'). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_command (which sends a command) and list_servers (which lists servers).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an active connection, or any other contextual cues. The description solely states what it does without saying when or when not to use it.

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