List default commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that returned items include each command's settings; it says nothing about pagination, channel-permission requirements, or the fallback behavior of the channel parameter.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its examples, and its scope with no wasted words.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description notes the return includes commands and their settings, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Lacking only routing guidance against the several sibling list/get commands.

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% — both channel (with its fallback to SE_CHANNEL_ID/token owner) and language are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (List) and resource (bot's built-in default commands) and adds clarifying examples (!points, !followage) plus the scope of returned data (their settings). It implicitly separates built-in defaults from the custom commands handled by commands_list/commands_create, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implied — you call this to inspect the built-in command set — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer it over commands_list, commands_list_public, or commands_get, and no preconditions mentioned.

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