coding_run_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only that execution routes through the domain-agent dispatcher under JWT/tenant/company scope; it does not disclose likely side effects or what the command may modify.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the core action, and every line earns its place: the action, the routing/scoping context, and the parameter meanings. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 destructive, open-world tool with no schema-level parameter descriptions, an agent still cannot infer what run_command executes, what message/inputs should contain, or what side effects to expect. The routing/scoping line and the existence of an output schema do not fill that 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by labeling message as a free-text objective and inputs as an optional JSON string. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it fails to specify valid input keys, how a command is expressed, or how the two parameters interact.

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 first sentence identifies a verb (Run) and a resource (the coding domain agent action run_command), and the routing/scoping line adds context. However, it never explains what run_command actually does or what effects it produces, leaving the purpose vague and indistinguishable from coding_run_tests or coding_run_pipeline.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many coding-domain siblings or dispatch_domain_agent. The dispatcher/scoping sentence describes execution mechanics, not selection criteria.

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