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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks for command existence but doesn't explain how it performs this check (e.g., system path search, specific OS behavior), what 'exists' means (e.g., executable in PATH), or any limitations (e.g., platform dependencies). This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Information about whether the command exists'), which slightly reduces efficiency. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, and return format, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool. More context is needed to compensate for the missing structured data.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value: it names the parameter ('command') and states it's 'The command to check,' but doesn't clarify format (e.g., string without arguments, case sensitivity) or examples. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage and single parameter.

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 purpose: 'Check if a command exists on the system.' This is a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('command'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_command_documentation' or 'list_common_commands', which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or specify scenarios where checking command existence is appropriate versus retrieving documentation or listing commands. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns documentation as a string, which is helpful, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling (what happens if the command doesn't exist), performance characteristics, or system dependencies. The description is functional but lacks operational context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and gets straight to the point. The opening sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter details. While efficient, the 'prefer_economic' explanation could be more concise or clearer about what 'economic approach' means in practice.

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 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job. It explains the basic functionality and parameters, but lacks important context about error conditions, performance, and system requirements. The return type is mentioned but not the format or potential variations in output.

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 description provides parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining what each parameter does. With 0% schema description coverage, this adds significant value beyond the bare schema. However, some explanations could be clearer - 'prefer_economic' is described but the meaning of 'economic approach' isn't fully explained, and 'man_section' range (1-9) is mentioned but not what different sections represent.

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 purpose: 'Get documentation for a command in Unix-like system.' It specifies the verb ('get documentation') and resource ('a command'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_command_exists' or 'list_common_commands' beyond the obvious functional difference.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of alternatives like using 'check_command_exists' first or when 'list_common_commands' might be more appropriate. The description only explains what the tool does, not when to choose it over other options.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list but doesn't specify details like format, size, or whether it's static or dynamic. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about key behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and return value. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Returns:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks depth in behavioral context and usage guidelines, which are needed for full agent understanding in this server context.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for this scenario is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 purpose: 'List common Unix commands available on the system.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('common Unix commands'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_command_exists' or 'get_command_documentation', which prevents a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for general exploration versus specific checks. This lack of comparative usage information limits its helpfulness for an AI agent.

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