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 behavioral burden. It appropriately discloses that commands run inside the remote container rather than locally, which is critical context. However, it does not mention potential destructive effects, output behavior, working directory, command timeouts, or whether the command runs in a non-interactive shell—relevant gaps for a remote command execution tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clear agent mandate. There is no filler or repetition of schema details; every sentence contributes to tool selection and correct usage.

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 description is adequate for a simple command-runner tool and gives a clear mandate plus examples, but it lacks information about return values, execution environment details, and safety considerations for potentially destructive commands. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, these gaps leave the agent partially underinformed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds practical value by giving realistic command examples and clarifying that the tool is intended for build, run, dependency installation, and management commands, which helps the agent populate the 'command' parameter correctly.

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 identifies the tool as executing shell or terminal commands directly inside a remote MileHost Docker container, with concrete examples like 'pip install -r requirements.txt' and 'python bot.py'. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like milehost_exec_command or milehost-run-command.

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 gives strong usage direction: 'Use this tool exclusively to execute all build, run, dependency installation, and management commands directly within the remote MileHost server container.' It also explicitly warns against writing or executing local bash/python scripts to manage remote bots. It does not name specific alternative tools for file transfers or server listing, but the 'when to use' instruction is clear.

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