list_commands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavior: returns the complete set of instructions in alphabetical order. For a read/list operation this is reasonably transparent, though it doesn't mention output format or whether results are paginated.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose plus the alphabetical ordering detail. Zero wasted words.

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, so the description's job is minimal. 'List every SHELXL instruction alphabetically' fully captures what's needed. It's complete for a no-parameter listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there's nothing for the description to elaborate beyond the schema. Per the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description appropriately doesn't waste space on them.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'List every SHELXL instruction the server knows about (alphabetical).' States it's an alphabetical listing of known instructions. It's distinguishable from siblings like search_commands and command_help by its exhaustive/listing nature, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies when to use: when you want the full list of available SHELXL instructions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_commands (for finding specific ones) or command_help (for details on a single command). No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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