Commands

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds modest context about scale (hundreds per instance) and substring filtering, but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as pagination or ordering. This is above baseline but not rich.

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 short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the actionable filtering advice placed immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple filtered listing operation, fully covered by annotations and an output schema. The description contributes the essential scale cue ('holds hundreds') and filtering recommendation, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including defaults and meaning of empty name_filter. The description's 'pass name_filter with a substring' restates the schema rather than adding new semantic depth, so 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 names a concrete verb-resource pair ('Find monitoring commands') and further specifies the resource by listing command types (check, notification, event-handler). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools that deal with checks, states, or services.

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?

It gives clear invocation context: an instance holds hundreds of commands, so callers should use name_filter with a substring to narrow results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, hence not a 5.

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