catalog

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it is read-only with no side effects, and specifies return format: 'Returns JSON with commands grouped by priority (P0=essential, P1=common, P2=useful, P3=specialized).' No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. Slightly verbose with 'See also ...' but still concise overall.

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 two optional parameters, no output schema, and simple functionality, the description adequately covers return format, grouping details, and usage context. Could mention default behavior when both params are omitted, but not necessary.

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. Description adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., fuzzy match already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'List all commands organized by GNU Coreutils priority categories.' It specifies the resource (commands) and action (list), and differentiates from siblings like 'tool-list' by noting this is for human-readable discovery.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use to discover the full command surface by functional area.' Also states when not to use: 'Not for LLM function-calling context — use 'tool-list' for machine-optimized output.' Provides alternative sibling tool name.

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