describe_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait (keys are not always the same as constructor parameter names), which adds value. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any potential side effects, though the tool is implicitly a read-only lookup. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action, and every word earns its place. The description is extremely efficient and direct, conveying purpose, usage context, and a key caveat without any fluff.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It explains the value (finding param keys) and the timing (when unsure). The lack of return format is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema covers the single parameter fully with a description and example. The tool description does not add significant meaning to the parameter itself; it focuses on the output semantics (keys differ from constructor names). With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's function: looking up the exact params keys a bridge command accepts. It specifically mentions the intended use with execute_command/execute_commands, distinguishing it from siblings that execute commands or manage other resources.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this whenever unsure what params a command needs') and adds a crucial caveat about key naming differences. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient for a lookup tool.

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