Run a server console command

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

It discloses that commands run with operator authority and that output behavior varies: normal output returns inline, while resource-claimed commands reply in the log a tick later. This adds practical context beyond the annotations, which already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core behavior, examples, and output timing with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every clause adds value.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what happens, under what authority, with example inputs, and how output will be delivered. The annotations additionally cover the destructive and non-idempotent nature, so nothing essential is missing.

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 for the single `command` parameter is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning; it does by explaining that the value is one console line and by providing concrete command examples. It does not fully define all possible command syntaxes, but that is impractical and the examples are sufficient for a single free-text parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Runs') and a clear resource ('one line at the server console'), with concrete examples like `resources` and `ensure my_res`. It clearly differentiates this command-execution tool from siblings such as `open77_console_tail` and `open77_server_status`.

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 establishes the context: execute one line of console input with operator authority, and it gives representative commands. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the one-shot, inline-output behavior makes the intended use clear.

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