xr18_list_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action but does not explicitly declare the operation as read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, rate limits, or output details. The prefix usage is a behavioral hint, but the description lacks transparency about safety or potential consequences.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action ('List documented command templates') and then provides immediate usage guidance. There is no fluff, and every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and has an output schema that defines the return structure. The description covers the core purpose and parameter usage, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings and does not state that the operation is read-only. Given the presence of an output schema, the completeness is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must explain the 'prefix' parameter. It does so by showing example prefixes and implying that the prefix filters the list. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema (a string with default). While not exhaustive, it effectively communicates the parameter's purpose.

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 action: 'List documented command templates.' It is specific about the resource (command templates) and provides usage hints with example prefixes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xr18_get or xr18_describe_command, which perform different actions.

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 gives concrete usage guidance for the prefix parameter ('Use a prefix such as /ch or /routing'), implying it filters results. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like xr18_describe_command, which might also be used for command discovery. No exclusions or comparison with siblings are provided.

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