get_all_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool as listing command IDs, implying a read-only, non-destructive operation. It also discloses the external extension dependency. This is sufficient for transparency.

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 at three sentences, front-loading the primary purpose. Every sentence adds significant value: purpose, use case, and installation requirement. No redundant or missing information.

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, parameter-less listing tool, the description is fully sufficient. It explains the output format via examples and mentions the external dependency, making it clear and complete for an AI agent.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the description adds value by giving examples of command IDs (e.g., 'project:save') that clarify the output format. With 100% schema coverage and no params, the baseline is 4.

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 all registered StarUML command IDs, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('registered StarUML command IDs'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_command by clarifying its role in 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?

The description notes that the tool is useful for executing commands via execute_command and mentions a prerequisite (staruml-mcp-extension installation) with a link, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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