list_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'List profiled Artisan command executions' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination behavior (though parameters suggest it), ordering, or any constraints. For a listing tool, critical behavioral details like response format and pagination are missing.

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 a single sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List'. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, earning a 4 rather than a 5.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, pagination details (e.g., whether results are ordered), or what 'profiled' entails. An agent would need to guess the response structure. This is a significant gap for a list tool.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add semantic value to parameters; it only provides a high-level purpose. The schema already describes each parameter adequately (name, from, to, limit, offset). The description adds no additional context like typical values or parameter interactions.

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 'List profiled Artisan command executions' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('profiled Artisan command executions'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_command' (single) and 'analyze_*' tools (analysis). It uniquely identifies the tool's function among many list and analysis siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_command' or other list tools. The description implies it's for viewing executed Artisan commands, but fails to mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusion criteria. An AI agent would lack context for choosing this over similar tools.

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