omni_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating that commands run with full privileges (a meaningful safety signal), are player-anchored, and produce chat feedback. It could still be more explicit about side effects, irreversibility, and failure behavior, but the privilege warning is valuable.

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 wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds the privilege/anchor qualifiers, and finishes with the response behavior. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essentials: what it runs, the privilege level, anchoring, and a hint about the response. However, 'Response includes chat feedback' is vague, and there is no output schema to clarify the response shape. Given the broad and potentially dangerous nature of a full-privilege command runner, a bit more detail about failure modes or side effects would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents the single 'command' parameter with 100% coverage, including the important 'without the leading /' detail. The description adds context about privilege and anchoring but no additional parameter-level semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Run') with a clear resource ('any in-game command') and adds two useful qualifiers: full-privilege and player-anchored. This clearly distinguishes it from the many specialized omni_* siblings, which handle targeted operations like shapes, item translation, or world management.

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 implies this is a generic catch-all for arbitrary in-game commands, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer a dedicated sibling tool over omni_command. There is no guidance about exclusions, such as 'use omni_shape_* for shape operations' or 'use omni_item_translate for item translation', so the usage context is only implied.

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