command_catalog

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the shape of the returned data (command string, registering jar/class, arity, help text), which implies a read-only lookup, but it never states that explicitly or covers size/pagination of 'every command'.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource described first and the usage/alternative second. Every clause adds information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the right thing by enumerating the returned fields, and with zero required params little more is needed. The only gap is that filtering behavior (e.g. prefix matching on `command`) is only hinted at.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by explaining the behavioral effect of `command=<name>` — it returns the exact usage rather than the catalog entry. The `jar` filter is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific resource — the CLI registry of every command CubeMX registers — and enumerates the returned fields (jar/class, arity, help text). The phrase 'discover what `cli` can run' clearly separates it from the sibling `cli` execution tool.

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?

'Use it to discover what `cli` can run; `command=<name>` returns the exact usage' gives an explicit when-to-use and names the alternative (`cli`). It doesn't cover when not to use it or what happens with a partial prefix match, but the routing signal is clear.

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