sassy_offline_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that the list is derived live from the tool registry, never drifts, separates network-dependent tools as unavailable, and that verbose=false returns only names to save tokens. This is a read-only listing tool, so side-effect and auth disclosure are not material gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then adds only value-adding details: derivation source, use case, and parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place and there is no restatement of the name or title.

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 simple two-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, derivation, grouping, network-dependent behavior, and parameter effects. It even points to sassy_tool_groups for valid group values, leaving no obvious gap for an agent to select or invoke it.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does. It explains group as a filter to one tool group with empty=all and references sassy_tool_groups, and verbose as toggling one-line purposes with a concrete token-saving consequence for 14B models.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource ('offline-safe command listing') and immediately distinguishes it from other catalog/group tools by scoping it to tools that work with no egress. It clearly says what the tool produces: names and one-line purposes grouped, with network-dependent tools listed separately.

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 clear context for when to use it: offline/no-egress environments and for pasting into a local model's system prompt. It also explains how to filter with the group parameter but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling listing/catalog tools such as sassy_tool_catalog or sassy_tool_groups.

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