run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a return-behavior trait that isn't in any structured field (log lines printed meanwhile, empty when attached), but it says nothing about the obvious risk profile of arbitrary command execution, error handling, or what 'attached' means operationally.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then behavior, no filler. The phrase 'empty when attached' is slightly elliptical but the density is appropriate.

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 structure needn't be spelled out, and the description does describe the synchronous log output. However, for an un-annotated arbitrary-execution tool with an undocumented 'wait' parameter, the definition should say more about preconditions and failure modes.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job on the required 'command' parameter by showing accepted syntax variants, but the 'wait' parameter is left entirely undefined in both schema and description, including its unit and what it governs.

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+resource ('send a raw console command') and gives concrete examples of the accepted forms ('set <global> <value>', GML function names with args). An agent immediately knows what this does; it just doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling set_input, which is the structured alternative.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this over set_input or the other siblings, nor any prerequisite such as needing a project/attachment first. The examples imply a low-level escape hatch but the agent has to infer that.

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