tapir_list_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds that results come with a one-line description, which is useful context, but says nothing about return count, ordering, or what happens when both filters are supplied. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a solid but unremarkable 3.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and tucks the optional filtering detail after it. No filler or redundancy, though it is terse enough to leave some gaps unaddressed.

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 list tool with 0 required parameters, fully documented schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description tells an agent what it needs to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps (filter interaction, result volume) are not critical for this complexity level.

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%, so both the group and search parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that filtering is by group name or text but adds no syntax, format, or matching-semantics detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (Lists) and resource (Tapir commands) and even characterizes the output (a one-line description). It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings tapir_describe_command and tapir_run_command, but the 'one-line description' phrasing implicitly separates it from the fuller describe variant.

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?

It states the optional filters ('optionally filtered by group name or text'), which implies when this tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs tapir_describe_command/tapir_run_command guidance or prerequisite conditions.

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