get_commands

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns a list of commands but does not mention return format (e.g., array of names/IDs), sorting, or performance implications. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, though that is reasonable for a 'get' tool. The examples add a bit of context, but deeper behavioral transparency is lacking.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes illustrative examples. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., whether it returns command IDs, names, or both), which an agent might need for downstream use with execute_command. This is a minor but notable gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 single filter parameter is fully documented in the input schema with a clear description ('Filter commands by name (case-insensitive)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for any gaps. Since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'commands', making it clear this tool lists available commands. It provides concrete examples like 'Toggle fold' or 'Export to PDF', which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like execute_command (which runs commands) and file listing tools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 that the tool is used to discover commands that can be executed, especially given the sibling execute_command tool, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no direct guidance on using this to find command IDs/names before executing, nor any exclusions. The context is implied rather than stated.

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