Run a command across every host in a fleet

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds valuable behavior: concurrent fan-out, per-host substitution grammar, and failure isolation. It also specifies the access requirement, going beyond annotations and providing context for side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant information. Efficient and structured.

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 only a vague mention of per-host behavior. Missing details like return format, error reporting, timeouts, or how results are aggregated. For a complex operation, this is incomplete.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description mentions substitution grammar but does not explain what each parameter (id, command, inputValues) means or how they map. $INPUT_n hints at inputValues, but id and command are not clarified. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb (run), resource (command across every host in a fleet), and scope (effective member hosts with edit access). It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_package_action_across_every_host and file operations, making the purpose 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?

The description provides context (concurrent fan-out, access requirement) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. It doesn't reference sibling tools or conditions for selection, leaving some inference to the agent.

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