run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does say the tool 'queues' a command, which indicates asynchronous enqueueing rather than direct execution, and the command list hints at possible effects. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or how to retrieve the queued command's result.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence and the fallback guidance is compact. The command-name list is long but directly useful for a generic tool; no filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 generic command runner with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope and invocation basics but omits behavioral context such as side-effect potential and result/status retrieval. It is minimally sufficient for selection and invocation, but not rich enough for safe autonomous use.

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 name and params are already documented. The description adds value by enumerating the valid command-name values, which the schema only illustrates with one example; it adds no new meaning to params but does not need to.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue any Sonarr command by name.' It enumerates known command names and contrasts itself with dedicated sibling tools, making its generic fallback role immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer dedicated tools (refresh_series, search_series, ...) where one exists, which tells the agent when to choose an alternative over this fallback. The known-names list further scopes the appropriate use case.

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