send_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying that only show/display commands are allowed and that configuration commands are blocked, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word serves a clear function, with no unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, good schema descriptions, output schema present, annotations), the description provides sufficient context. It specifies the domain (lab device), the command type (show/display), and restrictions (read-only, blocked config). Sibling tools are also listed.

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 good descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it defaults to a baseline score of 3.

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 action ('run'), the resource ('one read-only show/display command'), and the scope ('on a lab device'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'configure_device' by specifying read-only and blocking config commands.

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 explicitly indicates when to use the tool (for read-only show/display commands) and when not (configuration commands are blocked). It provides clear context for choosing this over siblings like 'configure_device'.

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