pfc_query_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return type ('matching command paths') and implies a search operation, but doesn't mention behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or whether results are paginated. It adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, related tools), front-loads the core functionality, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The bullet-point format for related tools enhances readability without wasting space.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 100% schema coverage, and clear sibling differentiation, the description is mostly complete. However, for a search tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context about search behavior, result ordering, or error handling to be fully comprehensive.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions - it mentions keywords in the purpose but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('PFC command documentation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it returns matching command paths rather than full documentation. The analogy 'like grep' provides helpful context.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance with a 'When to use' section listing specific scenarios (keywords without exact path) and examples. It also names three related tools with clear distinctions about when to use each alternative, making sibling differentiation excellent.

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