itasca_query_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it clearly discloses the key behavioral trait: this returns matching command paths only, not full documentation, and points to another tool for details. It does not explicitly state read-only/non-destructive behavior or result ranking, but the grep analogy and output schema cover most operational expectations.

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 behavior and return value, then structured with a short when-to-use list and related-tool routing. Every sentence serves a purpose with no wasted text.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema and full schema description coverage, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, return shape, usage conditions, examples, and sibling tool alternatives. No critical gap remains for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents query, software, version, and limit with examples and defaults. The description adds only illustrative keyword examples and does not add syntax, format, or semantic details beyond the schema.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Search Itasca command documentation by keywords') and clarifies the return ('matching command paths'), while explicitly distinguishing itself from itasca_browse_commands for full documentation. The grep analogy adds an immediate mental model.

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 explicit when-to-use criteria ('You have keywords but don't know exact command path') with concrete examples, and names the relevant sibling tools with their selection conditions. The routing to itasca_browse_commands, itasca_browse_reference, and itasca_query_python_api is unambiguous.

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