get_command_tree_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-like behavior (return cached or refresh), but does not explain whether refresh blocks, has side effects, or any performance implications. Basic transparency but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and special behavior. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given empty input schema, existence of output schema (handles return values), and siblings, the description is adequate. It could elaborate on what 'refresh if missing' entails, but overall sufficient for a simple cached read operation.

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?

Input schema is empty (0 parameters) and schema description coverage is 100%. Description adds no parameter info, but no parameters exist, so baseline score of 4 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 returns a cached discovery tree and refreshes if missing. The verb 'return' and resource 'cached discovery tree' are specific, and the mention of caching distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_commands which likely performs a full 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?

Usage context is implied (use when you want the cached tree), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like discover_commands. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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