list_commands

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read, so the description need not restate safety. It does add one useful behavioral fact — the command data is extracted from Aseprite source, implying a static snapshot rather than live introspection — but says nothing about result size, pagination, or whether the list is version-specific.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the resource, the tool it pairs with, and the provenance of the data. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 one-parameter read-only listing with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent results include command parameters and where that data comes from. Minor gaps remain around result volume and whether the snapshot can go stale, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 single optional query parameter (case-insensitive filter on name/description) is already fully documented. The description's mention of 'with their parameters' refers to returned data, not the input parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists Aseprite commands') and ties them to the consuming tool, run_command, which distinguishes it from nearby tools like run_lua or api_docs. The parenthetical about provenance adds a little scope detail, though it does not explicitly contrast with its closest siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: the description references run_command, so an agent can infer this is a discovery step before invoking a command. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when api_docs or run_lua would be preferable, and no guidance on whether the listing is exhaustive or how to narrow results.

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