run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the input format ('tokens list, "" = Enter'), which is useful, but it does not warn about potential destructive consequences of running arbitrary commands, error behavior, or execution context. The token detail adds value, but safety and outcome transparency are lacking.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by critical input behavior and usage preference. Every word earns its place; no 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 generic nature (any command) and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description does not cover command syntax/conventions beyond the empty-string rule, or provide examples. It is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to construct commands correctly.

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 the description must compensate. It explains that the single parameter 'tokens' is a list of command tokens and that an empty string represents Enter. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare array type, though it could be more explicit about structure (e.g., first token is the command name).

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 tool's purpose: 'Run any BricsCAD command' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from dedicated siblings by adding 'Prefer dedicated tools when they exist,' making it explicit that this is a generic fallback.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer dedicated tools when they exist.' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool (when a dedicated sibling matches the task) and implies it should be used only as a fallback. This is strong usage guidance.

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