headron

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that the exit code is the verdict plus how to discover subcommand arguments. It does not describe batch execution behavior or any permission/rate-limit considerations, but with annotations covering safety this is a solid disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and an example, then supplies the verb list and discovery command. The long verb list is dense but useful for a dispatcher; overall it is appropriately sized, though slightly list-heavy.

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 generic command-dispatch tool with no output schema, the description covers verb discovery and exit-code interpretation. It is still incomplete because batch/parallel usage and the relationship to sibling tools are not clarified, which an agent would need to call it optimally.

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 low at 33%, and the description only explains argv via the example and 'one command' phrasing. The batch parameter, including its max-8 grouping behavior and how it relates to argv, is not described in the tool description, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 states a specific dispatch behavior: run one read-only headron command as argv, with an example and a full verb inventory. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from dedicated sibling tools such as gate, port, or route.

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?

It gives useful in-tool guidance via ["commands", "--json"] for discovering arguments, which is a concrete usage pattern. However, it does not say when to use this generic runner versus the sibling wrapper tools, nor when not to use it.

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