Run a Recovery Probe command

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

Adds genuine behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the return value ('exit code and output') and the accepted command set. However, despite destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, it never warns that commands may mutate state or require setup/permissions, and 'See the package docs' defers the details an agent most needs before invoking an arbitrary-command runner.

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?

Well front-loaded, but the same command list is enumerated twice — once inline with parenthetical qualifiers and again as a flat 'Commands:' list — which is pure repetition. The closing 'See the package docs' sentence mostly shifts work elsewhere rather than informing.

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?

Covers the essentials for a generic command runner with no output schema: valid commands, output shape (exit code + output), and --json. Missing is any statement of side effects, permission/setup requirements, or what happens on failure for a tool flagged destructive and open-world, which is a meaningful omission for a catch-all runner.

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?

The schema documents args only generically, but the description supplies the actual valid command vocabulary (check, discover, action, reads, windows, observe, refresh, android, doctor) plus --json guidance, which meaningfully constrains args[0] where the schema has no enum. timeoutMs is never mentioned, and 'see the package docs' leaves per-command configuration unresolved.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Runs a Recovery Probe command') and enumerates the concrete commands it accepts, so an agent knows exactly what surface it covers. The 'has no dedicated tool' phrase is a strong scoping clue that differentiates it from named siblings, though 'Recovery Probe' itself is jargon that offers no domain anchor.

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?

Gives a clear fallback rule: use this only for commands that have no dedicated tool, which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs when siblings like check_read_recovery or network_fault_summary exist. It also advises passing --json where supported, but never names a specific sibling to prefer or states what happens when a dedicated tool does exist.

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