cw_view_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key behavioral trait that view-opening commands produce no new window, which explains a false-negative from cw_run_command. What's missing is what this tool itself returns (a plain list, docs, or command ids) and whether it is read-only.

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?

Two sentences, the diagnostic caveat front-loaded ahead of the verification advice, with no filler. The phrasing 'with the caveat that matters' is a touch informal but costs only a few 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say what a caller gets back (a list of command names? descriptions?) and roughly how to use the result. It fully covers the important false-negative caveat and verification path but leaves the return contract unstated.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes nothing and there is no parameter semantics to add. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not clutter itself with argument talk.

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 first clause names the resource and scope ('Commands that open SONAR views'), so an agent can tell it apart from cw_run_command or cw_list_commands. It never states explicitly that the tool returns a reference list of those commands, leaving the output shape implicit.

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?

Implies usage by contrasting with cw_run_command's 'none-observed' reporting and by suggesting verification via the accessibility tree or a screenshot. It does not explicitly say 'use this to discover which commands to run instead of cw_list_commands' or state any preconditions.

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