siril_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the command runs in the 'live GUI session' but does not mention side effects, session requirements, failure modes, or whether the command mutates state. For a command runner that can execute arbitrary operations, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a clear Args section. Every line earns its place without filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Although an output schema is present, the description lacks important context for correct invocation: it does not explain how to discover valid command names, when to use this tool instead of running a script, or what session precondition is required. The sibling siril_list_commands is available but never referenced, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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 add meaning by naming example commands and describing 'args' as an optional list of argument strings, which goes slightly beyond the schema's bare types. However, it does not specify the expected argument syntax or how commands should be invoked, so the compensation is partial.

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 a specific action ('Run a single Siril command in the live GUI session') and gives concrete command examples ('autostretch', 'load', 'cd'), so an agent can understand what the tool does. It partially distinguishes itself from sibling tools like siril_run_script through the qualifier 'single command', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus siril_run_script, siril_list_commands, or the other siblings. The intended use is only implied by the name and the examples; there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or pointers to more appropriate tools.

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