coding_run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions routing through a dispatcher but fails to disclose side effects, potential destructiveness, rate limits, or output format. For a 'run command' tool, this is insufficient.

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 relatively short but includes implementational detail about routing (JWT, tenant, company scope) that is unlikely to help the agent. The args are clearly listed, but overall structure could be more focused on actionable info.

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 complexity (dynamic command execution with free-text input) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving critical gaps for the agent.

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 compensate. It loosely describes `message` as 'free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'optional JSON string of structured inputs', but does not explain their relationship, input constraints, or expected format, leaving semantic gaps.

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 states it runs a coding domain agent action called `run_command`, providing a verb and resource. However, it does not clarify what kind of commands are possible or how it differs from specific coding tools like `coding_explain_code` or `coding_write_code`, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its many siblings in the `coding_*` namespace. The description does not mention alternatives or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent without direction.

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