sassy_offline_commands

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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations: it clarifies that LAN tools are included (since they need a network but not the internet), that the response lists tools unavailable offline, and that verbose=false cuts token usage to about a quarter. These details are not present in the annotations or schema, and nothing contradicts the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations.

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 dense but efficient, opening with 'Read-only.' and then delivering purpose, parameters, inclusion rules, and usage guidance in a logical order. No sentence is filler; it is slightly long but each 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?

The description covers the tool's output structure (grouped, usage counts, unavailable tools, system_prompt_snippet), parameter semantics, token considerations, network scope (LAN vs internet), and sequencing with sassy_offline_handoff. With an output schema present, this is a complete and self-sufficient definition for an agent.

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 fully compensates. It explains that 'group' filters to one group and directs to sassy_tool_groups for valid names, and that 'verbose' controls whether names only or names plus one-line purposes are returned, along with token impact. Both parameters are clearly and usefully described.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and a specific resource ('offline-safe command listing built live from the tool registry, grouped by tool group with usage counts'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like sassy_tool_catalog or sassy_tool_groups by emphasizing the offline-safe filtering and live registry construction.

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 context: 'Use before sassy_offline_handoff to build the local model's tool menu' and warns 'never paste the full catalog into a small local model.' It also explains the optional group filter via reference to sassy_tool_groups, but does not mention when to prefer other sibling tools like sassy_tool_catalog, so it stops short of a full when/where-not matrix.

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