flo_command

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as potential side effects, authentication requirements (beyond the authToken parameter), rate limits, or the fact that running arbitrary commands could be destructive. The description is too brief to inform safe usage.

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 with no superfluous text. However, it may be too concise at the expense of necessary detail, but it earns a 4 for being 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not cover return values, error scenarios, or behavior when the command fails. With 2 parameters and a troubleshooting context, more completeness 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 50% (only authToken is described). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters, not even explaining what the 'command' parameter expects or providing examples. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 raw /flo:* slash commands for troubleshooting, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like flo_analyze or flo_search by specifying it's for raw commands and troubleshooting context.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. The description only mentions 'for troubleshooting' but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contrast with other flo_* tools.

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