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 behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds a filter ('that can be executed'), but it does not explicitly state whether it has side effects, the return format, or any access requirements. For a listing tool, the core behavior is mostly clear, but some transparency gaps remain.

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, direct sentence that starts with the primary verb and identifies the resource without any filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it omits details about the returned items (e.g., command IDs, names, or objects) and how they might be used with related tools like 'execute_command'. A brief mention of the output structure would make it more 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 zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. There are no parameter details for the description to clarify, and nothing more is needed beyond the schema.

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 clear verb 'List' with a specific resource 'all available Obsidian commands that can be executed', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'execute_command' by clearly being about listing rather than executing.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'execute_command'. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer potential use cases from the tool name alone.

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