cw_command_support

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it explains that some commands are registered but not dispatched, so posting them is a no-op. It does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only or side-effect-free, but the behavioral warning is the key information an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the core capability and then gives concrete examples of working and non-working command families. It is generally efficient, though the closing phrase about not leaving you to discover it is slightly redundant.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description gives enough context to know when to consult it and what categories it covers. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify the return shape, such as whether it returns a list, mapping, or per-command status records, leaving some ambiguity about what the agent will receive.

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 the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to compensate for, and the description correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than input arguments.

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 states a specific capability: reporting which WM_COMMAND actions actually work in this SONAR build. It is clearly a support/capability lookup tool, not an executor or command lister, but it does not explicitly name close siblings such as cw_list_commands or cw_command_evidence to sharpen the distinction.

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?

It gives clear usage context by saying this tool tells you up front what is supported and warns that posting unsupported commands does nothing. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this one, but the intended usage condition is clear.

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