command_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It characterizes the tool as a 'low-level diagnostic' and says data is returned 'when available', which signals that results may be empty and that the call is read-oriented. It does not describe side effects, failure modes, or what 'available' means, but the diagnostic framing covers the core safety expectation.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by routing to alternatives. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers purpose and usage routing, which lets an agent decide when to call it. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanation, an agent is left to guess at the return shape and the effect of include_timings. For a low-level diagnostic tool this is a notable but not fatal gap.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description never mentions session_id or include_timings. Neither the text nor the schema explains how these parameters affect the result or what values are expected beyond the titles and defaults. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'return active window/form command-bar data'. It labels the tool as a 'low-level diagnostic', and the second sentence names sibling tools (command_interface_*, object_command_panel) to distinguish this tool's scope. This clearly identifies what the tool does and how it differs from nearby tools.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to prefer command_interface_sections/commands/search for application navigation commands, and object_command_panel/object_context_menu for commands of a specific UI object. This provides clear when-to-use alternatives for the two main competing use cases. It implies this tool is for low-level diagnostic command-bar data only, which is sufficient routing guidance.

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