List client console commands

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the data-source mechanism (handshake streams CVAR frames), which is useful context, but says nothing about volume, rate limits, or auth. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what gets returned, then the routing alternative, then the filtering behavior. No filler, and each sentence carries information. Slightly dense with domain jargon.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a read-only listing tool, the description covers the source, the sibling alternative, and the filter behavior. It is complete enough for correct invocation without being exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: 'Filter with a case-insensitive substring' explains the semantics of the 'contains' param, including case-insensitivity, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 the tool streams every command the client console knows, with the parenthetical '(CVAR frames)' clarifying the return. It distinguishes the client console from server commands and routes the latter to server_command, but the core action is conveyed through jargon ('devcon handshake') rather than a clean verb+resource statement.

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 names an explicit alternative and the condition for using it: 'For server commands, run help through server_command instead.' That is a clear routing rule. It does not, however, address the other nearby siblings like client_command or read_console, so guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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