run_command_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implicitly discloses that unreachable hosts are skipped ('raggiungibili'), a useful detail, but says nothing about destructive potential, required permissions, failure handling across hosts, or what the timeout bounds.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but also no depth; the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The Italian text is also inconsistent with the English tool name and sibling names.

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. But for a high-blast-radius tool that executes commands across every reachable host with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves critical context missing.

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% for both parameters. The description references running a command but gives no syntax, format, or shell-context details for 'command', and never mentions 'timeout' or its default of 60 seconds. It does not 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?

States a specific verb (esegue) with a scope (un comando batch su tutti gli host raggiungibili), which separates it from the single-host run_command sibling. However, it never names run_command_many or broadcast as alternatives, so discrimination relies on inference from the scope phrase alone.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings like run_command, run_command_many, and broadcast in the same family, the agent gets no explicit criteria for choosing this tool over them.

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