ro_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'run an arbitrary command' without mentioning side effects, risks of arbitrary execution, or any state changes. Given the tool's 'escape hatch' nature, the lack of warnings or constraints is a significant omission.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Escape hatch') and provides a clear directive. It conveys maximum information with zero filler, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it lacks any caveats about the dangers of arbitrary commands (e.g., irreversible actions, unknown return formats) and doesn't mention error handling or limits. Given the tool's broad scope, more context would be helpful, but it's not incomplete to the point of being unusable.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'cmd' parameter described via example ('sit', 'status', 'i'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, merely confirming the parameter is a console command. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed that.

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 the tool runs an arbitrary OpenKore console command, using a specific verb ('run') and resource ('command'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'Prefer the specific tools; use this for anything they do not cover,' which makes its niche explicit.

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?

The description gives direct when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer the specific tools; use this for anything they do not cover.' This explicitly tells the agent to use specialized tools first and this only as a fallback, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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