gx3_list_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, touches no project, and returns a one-line summary per command. This adequately discloses side effects and output shape for a simple listing tool, though it does not describe pagination or formatting details.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose and output are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds essential usage guidance. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-parameter discovery command with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool lists, how the list is formatted, that it is safe/read-only, and when to use it relative to gx3_run_command. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% by definition. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('every project-read-only GX3 CLI command'), and clearly states the output format ('with a one-line summary of each'). It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, especially gx3_run_command, because it is a meta-command that enumerates available CLI commands rather than performing a domain 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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this before gx3_run_command when no typed tool fits, to discover what is actually available rather than guessing a command name. This names the alternative tool and the condition that selects this tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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