nsdchat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the single most important behavioral trait, the confirmation requirement for non-read-only methods, plus a partial list of safe methods, but says nothing about failure modes, output format, or whether a confirmed mutation is reversible.

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 dense sentences with the format example up front and the safety rule second; nothing is wasted. The trailing ellipsis in the method list leaves scope slightly fuzzy but the brevity is appropriate for a passthrough tool.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say more about how an agent discovers valid method names and what responses look like. The partial method list helps, but a raw passthrough tool of this generality needs more than a truncated enumeration.

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%, so both `args` and `confirm` are already documented in the schema. The description adds a concrete argument-shape example plus the enumeration of read-only method names, which is marginal extra value over the schema text.

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?

It states that this is a raw passthrough to the `nsdchat` CLI with `-c` arguments and gives a concrete example, which is more specific than a tautology. However, it never explains what nsdchat is or what resource domain it covers, so an agent cannot easily distinguish it from siblings like `status` or `health`.

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 gives clear invocation guidance for the confirm gate: read-only methods run directly while anything else needs `confirm:true`. It offers no guidance on when to choose this raw passthrough over the many higher-level sibling tools, leaving that choice entirely to inference.

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