command_interface_commands

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool returns a command tree and flattened list, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what the output structure looks like (e.g., nested objects vs. flat array), or any side effects. It lacks depth about ordering, filtering behavior, or if it reflects current session state.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It wastes no words and clearly states the core functionality and optional filter. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it could have added more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It captures the main output (tree and flattened list) and the optional section filter, but misses clarification on the relationship to sibling commands, the meaning of the three parameters, and return format. For a tool that appears relatively simple, it is adequate but not complete; an agent could call it without critical errors, but might misjudge its scope.

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 0% and no parameter descriptions are provided, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally filtered by section,' which gives meaning to the 'section' parameter, but does not explain 'session_id' or 'window_title.' However, given the tool context, session_id and window_title are likely common across many tools, and the description provides partial compensation for the undocumented parameters.

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 it returns the command-interface command tree and flattened list, with optional section filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like command_interface_sections and command_interface_search which likely return different subsets or perform searches. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the resource and action.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like command_interface_sections and command_interface_search exist, but no guidance is given on when to prefer this tool. The optional section filter is mentioned, but no context on typical use cases or when the flattened list is needed vs. other views.

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