describe_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that object params of known PlanData type are expanded to nested fields, revealing a key behavioral trait not obvious from the schema. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, has any latency, or requires authentication, leaving minor 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 composed of three sentences, all tightly focused and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds unique value, but the third sentence about PlanData types could be slightly more concise without losing clarity, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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?

Given the single parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently covers input semantics and the tool's purpose. It explains why the tool is needed (key mismatch) and a notable output behavior (nested field expansion). The absence of any mention of error handling or return format is a minor gap, but overall it's complete for a simple lookup tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the command parameter works (e.g., parsing 'UpdateNodeCommand' as a class name) and the nested expansion for PlanData types, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This justifies a 4.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a lookup for command parameter keys used by execute_command/execute_commands. It specifies the exact resource ('bridge command') and verb ('look up'), and distinguishes it from siblings like execute_command by focusing on inspection rather than execution.

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 explicitly advises when to use this tool ('whenever unsure what params a command needs') and highlights that keys differ from constructor parameter names, giving a strong usage directive. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context signal of 27 sibling tools and a focused use case makes the guidance clear.

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