get_command_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves documentation, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the returned documentation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying what is retrieved (detailed documentation), for what (a specific Selenix command), and what it includes (target and value parameter descriptions). There is no waste or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer behavior from the description alone, which is incomplete for effective tool invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'command_name' fully documented in the schema as 'The camelCase command name (e.g., "click", "executeScript")'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get detailed documentation for a specific Selenix command, including target and value parameter descriptions.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('documentation for a specific Selenix command'), and scope ('including target and value parameter descriptions'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_command_list' or 'get_selected_command_info', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_command_list' (which might list commands) or 'get_selected_command_info' (which might provide info for a currently selected command), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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