list_commands

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or return format. The note-opening hint adds context but is more about using the listed commands than the behavior of this tool.

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 front-load the core function and add a practical caveat. No redundant wording, perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (list of commands) and the necessary precondition. It could mention the format of returned commands, but for a listing tool this is not a critical gap. The sibling context is clear enough from the description.

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%, with vaultId already described as 'Optional vault ID (defaults to configured default vault).' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('List all available commands in Obsidian') and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tool execute_command, which runs commands. The purpose is immediately obvious without ambiguity.

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 second sentence provides a clear prerequisite: 'For commands that operate on notes, open a note first.' While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the contrast with execute_command is implied. The guidance is actionable and helpful for the user.

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