milehost-run-command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral fact that execution happens remotely inside the container and warns against local scripts, but it says nothing about command output, exit codes, working directory, timeouts, persistence, or behavior when folder_id is omitted with multiple servers.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The examples clarify typical usage, and the AI-agen mandate is directly actionable without being verbose.

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 definition is adequate for a straightforward command execution call, but because no output schema exists and command execution has complex side effects, the agent would benefit from knowing what the tool returns and how container targeting is resolved. The examples and mandate help, but these gaps keep it at a minimum-viable level.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description's examples add practical flavor but do not add meaning beyond what 'Shell or terminal command string to execute inside the remote MileHost container' already communicates.

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 verb ('Executes'), a specific resource (terminal/shell command inside the remote cloud Docker container on MileHost), and gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling milehost_exec_command, which appears to overlap in functionality, so it misses a 5.

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 clear when-to-use guidance ('Use this tool exclusively for executing commands in the cloud container') and a when-not-to-use instruction ('Do NOT run local scripts'). It does not mention alternatives for other operations such as listing servers or rebooting, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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