discover_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are cached on disk, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention if the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or how long the cache persists.

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 extremely concise at two sentences. The first sentence delivers the core purpose, and the second adds an important behavioral note (caching). No word is wasted.

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 description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks explanation of caching behavior (e.g., how to clear cache) and does not describe the depth parameter's effect on result breadth. For a low-complexity tool, additional context on parameters would improve completeness.

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%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'depth' or 'refresh'. These parameters are critical for controlling behavior, and their semantics are left entirely to the schema names and defaults.

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 action ('Discover CLI commands'), the target resource ('CLI commands'), and the method ('via '?' on the device'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_command and get_command_tree_summary by focusing on discovery rather than execution or retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_command_tree_summary or run_commands. It mentions caching but does not explain when caching is beneficial or when a refresh is needed.

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