infomaniak_list_kchat_commands

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds a behavioral nuance: it can list for a team or the account, implying the optional team_id parameter affects scope. However, it does not explain pagination, sorting, or what exactly is returned, though the output schema helps. No contradiction.

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, clear sentence that immediately states the action and scope. No wasted words, perfectly front-loaded.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the core action and the parameter's role. It could mention what the list contains (e.g., names, descriptions) but the output schema likely handles that. Overall, complete for its complexity.

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% (team_id has a description). The description's 'for a team or the account' clarifies the meaning of the optional team_id parameter, reinforcing the schema. The baseline is 3 because the schema already provides the parameter meaning, and the description adds modest context.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'kChat slash commands', and specifies the scope ('for a team or the account'). This distinguishes it from siblings like infomaniak_get_kchat_command (which retrieves a single command) and infomaniak_manage_kchat_command (which modifies commands).

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 implies when to use it: to list commands, optionally filtered by team. It clearly indicates the scope (team or account) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling tools, it would be stronger to say 'Use this to see all commands; for a specific command use get_kchat_command', but the purpose is clear enough.

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