list_all_commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds behavioral context: it enumerates from specific services and mentions performance characteristics (large installs, limit for speed). No destructive behavior is implied, consistent with 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 two sentences, front-loads the main action ('Enumerate Fiji/ImageJ commands'), and includes essential details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers purpose, behavior, and parameter usage. No additional context is needed for correct invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the 'limit' parameter, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining its purpose in relation to performance ('lower limit for faster responses'). This goes beyond a bare schema description.

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 enumerates Fiji/ImageJ commands from specific sources (SciJava CommandService and legacy ij.Menus), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_commands. It also notes the potential for large results and suggests adjusting the limit.

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 advises lowering the limit for faster responses in large installs, providing implicit usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over search_commands or other alternatives, which slightly limits its guidance.

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