raycast_system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is silent on the fact that most enumerated operations (shutdown, restart, logout, empty-trash, eject-all) are destructive and irreversible, and says nothing about the confirmation behavior beyond what the schema already states for the confirm parameter.

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 short sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but its brevity stems from under-specification rather than efficiency — there is essentially no content for a destructive 7-function tool.

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 tool that can shut down, restart, or log out a machine, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the irreversibility warning and safety context an agent needs. The enum alone tells the agent what can be invoked but not the consequences.

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 100%, with the enum fully documenting valid functions and the confirm flag documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter values or interactions (e.g. which functions ignore confirm).

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?

"Access system functions through Raycast" names a resource (system functions) but uses the vague verb "access" — the enum shows these are concrete OS-level actions (sleep, shutdown, empty-trash), not a generic accessor. It is at least distinguishable from siblings like raycast_search or raycast_clipboard by the "system functions" domain, but the purpose remains under-specified.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when a sibling tool (e.g. raycast_shortcut or raycast_workflows) would be preferred. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely from the enum values.

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