List commands, styles, templates, formats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantive behavioral context: commands include parameters and ribbon location, styles depend on a new document or input_path, and formats cover open/save. It does not describe output format or pagination, but it goes beyond the 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?

The definition is a single dense sentence organized by catalog kind with useful parentheticals and no filler beyond the opening phrase. It is appropriately sized, though it could front-load the listing action more directly instead of starting with 'What WordCraft can do'.

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 must carry return-value context; it names the contents of each catalog kind but does not explain output format, size or pagination for 615 commands, or how filter applies across kinds. It remains adequate for a read-only discovery tool because the schema covers the parameters, but clear gaps remain.

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?

The description explains the meaning of every kind enum value, including the distinction between styles of a new document and styles of input_path. It omits the filter parameter, but the schema documents that at 67% coverage, so the description still adds strong semantic value.

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 enumerates the four catalog types and ties commands to run_wordcraft_commands, making the resource scope clear. It does not use an explicit 'list' verb in prose, but an agent can still identify this as the catalog-discovery tool and distinguish one key sibling relationship.

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 only explicit routing is that commands are 'for run_wordcraft_commands'; there is no direct guidance on when to use this tool instead of get_document_info, open_in_wordcraft, or other siblings. The styles mention of input_path hints at inspecting a document, but usage remains mostly implied.

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