run_command

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the read-only restriction, allowed command prefixes, and that configuration commands are blocked. It does not detail output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema (not shown) likely covers return values.

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 concise: a purpose sentence, a safety/usage sentence, and a formatted Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (purpose and restriction) is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter details, and constraints. With an output schema (exists but not shown), return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The description adequately fills in the gaps left by the absence of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds that 'device' is from devices.yaml and that 'command' must start with specific prefixes, providing essential meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Run any read-only (show) command on a network device,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it's for commands not covered by dedicated tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this when you need a specific command not covered by the dedicated tools,' and specifies that configuration commands are blocked, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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