fc_list_commands

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the response payload by naming the exact fields returned, which is meaningful behavioral context. It says nothing about output volume (how many commands exist), whether results are truncated or paginated, or that the operation is a safe read with no side effects — gaps that matter for a catalog-listing call with no declared 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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, that spends its remaining words enumerating the concrete return fields. Nothing is redundant and nothing is buried.

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?

This is a simple, low-complexity listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description compensates for the missing output schema by naming the returned fields. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation against fc_describe and fc_inspect, which the description does not address.

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 sole parameter (filter) is fully documented in the schema as a substring match on command IDs or labels. The description never mentions filtering, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("filmCraft commands") and enumerates the returned fields (IDs, labels, menu paths, shortcuts, parameter schemas), so the agent knows exactly what this call yields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby discovery-oriented siblings such as fc_describe or fc_inspect, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can reasonably infer this is the enumeration/discovery entry point before calling fc_exec or fc_describe. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over fc_describe or fc_inspect, and no guidance on chaining it with fc_exec.

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