send_command_by_path

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

Description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true) and adds the behavioral distinction of executing via path vs inline. However, it does not disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects beyond execution.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description omits critical context for a destructive, path-based execution tool: file existence, permissions, error handling, and typical usage scenarios. This is inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no meaning for any of the 4 required parameters (pid, script_name, file_path, timeout). The agent must infer solely from parameter names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Executes a script file directly by path') and the resource ('in the PyNet engine'), and contrasts with inline sending, distinguishing it from sibling tool 'send_command'.

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?

Implied usage when a script file path is available, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_command, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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