cluster_send_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses critical constraints: commands must be registered in MI_COMMANDS and per-command permission is enforced, preventing bypass of mi.write controls. This provides strong transparency, though it could mention error behavior.

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?

One introductory sentence followed by a clear parameter list; no redundant or extraneous content. Efficient and scannable.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and key behavioral constraints. With an output schema present, return details are handled separately. Could mention error conditions or output format hints, but overall adequately complete for a command-sending tool.

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 0%, so description must explain all parameters. It defines each parameter and adds crucial context for mi_cmd (registration, permissions) and mi_params (optional JSON string). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Send an MI command to a specific node in the cluster.' It uniquely identifies the remote execution scope, distinguishing it from local MI command tools like mi_execute.

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 usage through parameter context (requires cluster_id, node_id) and notes permission enforcement, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like mi_execute or other cluster tools.

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