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 mentions ssh execution and 'batch' but does not disclose critical behavior: whether it blocks until completion, how output is returned, what happens on timeout, or that it likely requires authentication to the host. The 'batch' wording is ambiguous, and the timeout parameter's default of 60 seconds is documented in the schema, but the description does not explain its effect. This is insufficient for a command-execution tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is very concise, though that conciseness comes at the cost of missing critical details. For its length, the structure is acceptable.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a command-execution tool with no annotations, zero parameter descriptions, and multiple similar siblings, the description is far too sparse. It does not cover prerequisites (ssh auth), execution semantics, or the distinction from sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 schema provides bare titles with no descriptions. The description does not explain what 'alias' refers to (presumably a host alias from list_hosts, but this is not stated), what format 'command' expects, or how 'timeout' behaves. With three undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (Esegue) and resource (comando batch) on an ssh host, which is understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_command_all, run_command_many, or run_and_wait, which appear to execute commands in different scopes or modes. Without that differentiation, an agent cannot confidently choose this tool over its 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus run_command_all, run_command_many, run_and_wait, or send_keys. The description only states what it does, not the context that selects it. For a command-execution tool in a crowded toolset, this is a notable gap.

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