Run Command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is guarded by an allow/deny policy, output is capped at 4000 characters, and there is a confirmation token mechanism for destructive actions. This goes beyond annotations but could disclose more about error handling or side effects.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, security policy, and output limit. No extraneous information.

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's complexity (arbitrary command execution with security implications), the description covers key aspects: what it does, security guardrails, preference for alternatives, and output size limit. It could mention failure modes or the effect of dryRun, but the parameter schema covers dryRun. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints.

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% and each parameter has a clear description. The description does not add significant new meaning to individual parameters beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does provide general context about the command execution policy, which indirectly relates to parameters like command and dryRun.

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 it executes arbitrary RouterOS console commands via SSH, distinguishing it from dedicated tools. It explicitly mentions 'arbitrary' and 'via SSH', and advises preferring dedicated tools where available, which clarifies its scope relative to siblings.

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: use when you need to run a command not covered by dedicated tools, and prefer dedicated tools like reboot when possible. It also explains the allow/deny policy and dryRun parameter for validation, offering clear context on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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