commands_list_global

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond this by detailing the return shape and warning that names/descriptions are raw app-author data with untrusted_text as a separately fenced copy. This helps set expectations about data safety.

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 tightly structured with three labeled sections: Purpose, When to use, and Returns. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the return snippet is compact. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value details are covered externally. The description supplies purpose, usage context, and a summary of the response. For a simple read-only list tool with two parameters and clear annotations, this is complete.

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 has 100% coverage, documenting application_id and with_localizations. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, 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 opens with 'List globally-registered application commands,' using a specific verb and resource. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like commands_list_guild (which lists guild-scoped commands) and commands_get_global (which fetches a single global 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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section: 'audit global slash commands; before bulk-overwriting global registry.' This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name an alternative tool.

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