run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a pre-check (command existence validation) and token parsing rule ('' = Enter), which is useful. However, it does not warn that running arbitrary commands can modify or destroy the drawing, which is a significant safety omission for a generic command runner.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral and selection notes. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one array parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers invocation, validation, and alternative tool preference. It could add safety caveats or error behavior, but the essentials are present. The output schema likely documents return values, so this is not a critical gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'tokens list' and the special meaning of an empty string as Enter, giving essential syntax semantics beyond the bare array schema. It lacks detailed examples but is adequate for understanding the primary usage.

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 states the action: 'Run any BricsCAD command.' It also distinguishes this generic tool from the many dedicated siblings by noting 'Prefer dedicated tools when they exist,' making the purpose and scope immediately apparent.

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?

Explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided: 'Prefer dedicated tools when they exist.' Additionally, the detail that the command name is checked to exist before sending conveys a safe usage pattern for trying arbitrary commands.

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