itasca_browse_commands

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral load; it does so by disclosing the read-only return shape at each navigation level (category overview, command list, full doc). It stops short of stating how invalid or ambiguous paths behave, which matters for an agent guessing at command names.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then tight labeled blocks for navigation levels, when to use, and related tools. Every line carries decision-relevant information; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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?

A three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema; the description supplies the path-granularity model and sibling routing that the structured fields cannot. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by mapping the 'command' argument's granularity to distinct behaviors ('ball' lists, 'ball create' returns full docs) and by giving a concrete reference-style example ('contact-models linear') that clarifies separator conventions. The version/software parameters are left to the schema, which already documents them fully.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Browse Itasca command documentation') and the analogy 'like glob + cat' immediately conveys the three-level lookup model. The 'Related tools' section explicitly separates it from itasca_query_command (keyword search when path unknown) and itasca_browse_reference, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit navigation levels (no command = categories, category only = command list, full command = docs) plus a 'When to use' block and named alternatives with the condition that selects each. Both branches — path known vs path unknown — are covered.

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