find_cli_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, any side effects, or required permissions. The description only explains the scope parameter, leaving behavior largely implicit.

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 concise, starting with the purpose, followed by a well-structured Args block. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a single-parameter 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main usage. However, it lacks information on edge cases, error conditions, or prerequisites. For a simple find tool, the completeness is adequate but not exceptional.

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 parameter schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds significant meaning by explaining the scope options (main, all, namespace:name) and default behavior. This goes beyond what the schema provides, compensating for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 'Find Flask CLI commands', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_blueprints or find_routes by focusing on CLI commands. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings, so it's a 4 rather than 5.

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 explains the scope parameter with three options, providing some guidance on search granularity. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use find_cli_commands vs. other find tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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