get_cli_commands

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, performance implications, or output format. As a read operation it likely has no side effects, but nothing explicitly states that.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. The command list adds necessary specificity without waste. Slight redundancy with the parameter description, but overall efficient.

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 documentation retrieval with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient, but it lacks explicit behavior details and sibling differentiation. An agent knows what to call but not exactly what to expect in return.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds context by enumerating valid command values (init, doctor, etc.). This goes beyond the schema's example, giving agents a clearer sense of acceptable inputs.

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 retrieves documentation for a specific CLI tool and lists the exact commands covered. This helps an agent understand the resource and scope, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like search_astryx_docs.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus searching general docs or other resources. The description implies usage for CLI documentation but doesn't state exclusions or alternatives.

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