rport_exec_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the execution channel, the path requirement, a filter-related restriction, and the return value (stdout/stderr when the job finishes). It does not mention potential side effects of arbitrary command execution or auth requirements, but the key traits an agent needs are present.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose/channel, path guidance, pipe warning, and return value. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Slightly dense, but no filler.

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 5-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema execution tool, the description covers the essential operational constraints: channel, path expectations, filter limitations, and what the response contains. The main gaps are failure behavior and side-effects of command execution, but the given information is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 60% (command, client_id, timeout_sec documented), so baseline is 3. The description reinforces the command parameter's absolute-path requirement and adds the deny-filter constraint, which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, it adds nothing about cwd or is_sudo, which remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (Ejecuta), resource (cliente RPort), and execution channel (canal del agente, sin túnel SSH) in the first sentence. This directly distinguishes it from rport_ssh_exec among the siblings. The scope of what the tool does is immediately unambiguous.

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 concrete practical guidance: Linux usually requires absolute paths, and pipes/redirections should be avoided when the client's deny filter is active. The 'sin túnel SSH' phrasing contrasts it with the SSH-based sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming rport_ssh_exec as the alternative, but the context is clear enough.

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