lingo_run_commands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses sequencing ('commands run after the model is loaded') and output shape ('raw output'), but an arbitrary command-execution tool should also warn about side effects (e.g., PICTURE/RANGE writing files) and timeout behavior for the undocumented timeout_ms parameter. It is more informative than a blank description but leaves the riskiest traits unstated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the usage guidance and sequencing note. No filler, though the trailing sentence could be folded in.

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?

A 4-parameter escape-hatch tool with no output schema; the description covers purpose, the alternative path, input format, and return shape ('raw output'), which is sufficient for correct invocation. It omits the model-vs-file_path relationship and timeout semantics, so it is not fully complete.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds example command values (["GO", "RANGE 1", "PICTURE 1"]) that clarify format, but says nothing about how model and file_path relate or what timeout_ms controls. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: running a sequence of LINGO command-window commands against a model and returning raw output. It implicitly separates itself from the structured path by saying it covers analyses 'the structured solver does not cover', which points at lingo_solve without naming it. Clear, though the sibling reference is indirect.

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?

Gives an explicit condition for use ('analyses the structured solver does not cover') and a concrete example command list, which effectively steers an agent away from lingo_solve. No explicit when-not guidance or prerequisites (e.g., auth, environment) are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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