commands_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope information (which command categories exist), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a catalog entry contains — relevant since limit/offset exist and default to 100.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and scope, ending with the actionable next-step rule. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searchable and the follow-up step, which is the core need. It stops short of explaining pagination behavior or result shape, both of which an agent needs to page through a large catalog correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden. 'By name/domain/field' loosely gestures at query and domain, but query matching behavior (substring? fuzzy?), field semantics, and the limit/offset pagination contract (default 100, max 500) are entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Discover the native TTCraft command catalog' — and names the search facets (name/domain/field). The category list makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling command_describe, which returns detail on a single command rather than listing them.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to command_describe 'before using an unfamiliar command,' establishing the discover-then-describe workflow. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over docs_search for lookup-style questions, so one sibling relationship is left implicit.

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