list_dex_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it fails completely. It offers no information about pagination, quota limits, required scoping, or what constitutes a 'command.' The verb 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but this is inference from the name, not disclosure from the description.

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 single sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the sentence merely repeats the tool name and earns no place. There is no front-loaded information that an agent couldn't already derive from the name itself.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description must explain what the tool returns, but it doesn't. It never defines what a DEX command is, whether the result is paginated, or how the account_id scoping affects results. The sibling get_dex_commands_quota hints at quota-related behavior that is completely unmentioned here.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents account_id as 'The account ID.' The description adds nothing about the parameter, but per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List DEX commands' is a pure restatement of the tool name, adding no new information. It uses a verb+resource pattern but is functionally tautological and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like get_dex_commands_quota or list_dex_rules, which share the DEX domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many DEX-related siblings (get_dex_commands_quota, list_dex_colos, list_dex_tests_overview, etc.). No context, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are given, leaving the agent to guess which DEX tool fits the task.

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