run_command_many

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 discloses only that execution is parallel across hosts; it says nothing about failure handling on partial hosts, timeout semantics, permission/auth requirements, or the destructive potential of arbitrary commands.

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. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a tool with four undocumented parameters.

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 no explanation, but for an execution tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves major gaps about targets, timeout, and concurrency behavior.

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% with four parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'aliases' (target hosts), 'timeout', and 'max_workers' are never explained; 'batch' versus a singular 'command' string is left unclear.

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 ('Esegue un comando batch in parallelo su più host'), so the agent knows it runs commands across hosts concurrently. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling run_command_all, leaving the multi-host overlap ambiguous.

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 on when to choose this over run_command, run_command_all, run_and_wait, or broadcast. The parallel/scope condition is implied but never tied to an explicit alternative, so the agent must infer routing from the name alone.

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