List Spl Commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it reveals the return structure (fields), indicates the list is not exhaustive ('most common'), and explains the purpose of the output. This sets accurate expectations for the agent without hiding the limitation of coverage.

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 concise, with a clear lead sentence followed by a scannable bullet list and a short note. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to parse. It earns a high score for efficiency, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the 'Note:' phrasing.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, what it returns, and how it relates to get_spl_reference. It could mention whether authentication is needed or return size limits, but those are likely not critical for a list command. The note about coverage is a nice touch that prevents over-reliance.

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?

There are zero parameters in the schema, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-level details since there are none. The description's mention of the output structure (command name, description, example) is helpful but not required for parameter understanding.

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 lists common SPL commands with descriptions, but it could be more specific about its relationship to the sibling get_spl_reference tool. The verb 'list' plus resource is clear, and the output structure (command name, description, example) is described. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's a curated subset for use with get_spl_reference.

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 explicitly mentions the tool can be used with get_spl_reference, providing context on when to use it. It also notes that get_spl_reference supports more commands, helping users decide between the two. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other list_* tools or state 'use this when...'.

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