list_commands

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it labels itself a 'Read-only manifest view,' states it takes no arguments, and reveals the response shape ('Returns a count plus a commands array'). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two succinct sentences: the first states what it does, the second gives usage context, read-only nature, argument count, and return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple read-only list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, behavior, and return structure. Sibling relationships are implied through the tool name and the usage note, so no further context is needed.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing to misinterpret. The description reinforces 'takes no arguments,' matching the empty schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no further parameter explanation is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Enumerate') and resource ('every slash command the server currently exposes as a prompt'), and clarifies what's included ('name and description'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_rules and list_skills, which target different resources.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use to discover available commands before routing a user request to one.' This gives clear context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for rules or skills), so it lacks the explicit exclusion/alternative guidance of a top-tier score.

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