xae_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the full burden falls on the description. It discloses one behavioral aspect: the guarded execution requiring a specific confirmation string. This hints at potential destructive or sensitive operations. However, it does not mention whether the command modifies state, has side effects, or what errors may occur. Partial disclosure but insufficient for full transparency.

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 very concise: two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and quickly gives context (guard). However, it could be slightly restructured for readability, e.g., separating the guard condition more clearly. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a short description.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it covers the main action and a critical constraint (guard). However, it omits details about parameter syntax (e.g., format of args), return behavior, and error cases, which are important for safe invocation. The complexity is moderate but the coverage gap means more description is needed.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters. The description only mentions "commandName" implicitly via the example "View.SolutionExplorer" and the guard "confirm" as the required string. No semantics for "args" parameter are given. Since the description must compensate for the lack of schema documentation but only partially does, the score is low.

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: "Execute a raw XAE/DTE command by name", giving a specific verb (Execute) and resource (XAE/DTE command). It also provides a concrete example (View.SolutionExplorer), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like tc_system or plc_download. However, it slightly lacks a fuller scope statement (e.g., what commands are valid or what environment it targets).

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 mentions a guard condition ("confirm=\"ALLOW_XAE_COMMAND_EXEC\""), which is a critical prerequisite for use. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use tc_system instead) or what types of commands are appropriate. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving ambiguity for an AI agent.

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