cw_list_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose key traits: live ids come from the running build's menu bar and are postable, while index ids are broader but not postable. It does not mention read-only safety, pagination behavior, or return shape, but the postability caveat is the most important behavioral distinction.

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?

It is two tightly written sentences, front-loads the core action, and immediately explains the important source-mode distinction. Every clause adds useful information without repetition.

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 three-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical source-mode behavior but leaves the limit parameter and the exact return shape unaddressed. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent relying on it alone.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description adds meaningful semantics for the source parameter by explaining postability consequences. The query parameter is already documented by the schema, but the limit parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, so compensation for the coverage gap is partial.

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 verb and resource: it lists SONAR commands, and it clarifies the two source modes. It also relates live-mode ids to cw_run_command, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other command-related siblings like cw_view_commands or cw_command_support.

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 guidance on choosing source="live" versus source="index", including the crucial caveat that index ids are not postable. It stops short of explicitly saying when to use this list tool instead of other sibling command-discovery tools.

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