run_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (execute commands, support pipes, string extraction techniques) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like security implications, error handling, output format, or execution environment constraints that would be crucial for an agent to use it effectively.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences, both of which earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose and key capability (piped commands), while the second provides specific guidance for string extraction scenarios. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 command execution tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information but lacks crucial context about what the tool returns, error conditions, security considerations, or execution environment details that would help an agent use it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by providing command examples that illustrate how parameters might be used together, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the parameter 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('execute a command in REMnux') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on command execution rather than file analysis, extraction, or management. It provides concrete examples that illustrate its unique functionality.

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 offers clear context on when to use this tool (for executing commands in REMnux, including piped commands and string extraction), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools. The examples imply usage scenarios without formal exclusions.

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