cli_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses important traits: no shell, ordered raw argv, absolute path requirements, OS-level privileges, and that file-root checks do not sandbox CLI execution. It still omits whether execution is synchronous or queued, how timeouts behave, and what kinds of destructive side effects are possible.

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 front-loaded and compact, with no filler. The four sentences each carry useful information: invocation style, scope, path expectations, and security context.

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?

It covers security and path constraints well, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, for a generic OS-privileged CLI runner with many sibling tools, it should say more about when to use it versus dedicated tools and how queued jobs are tracked or completed.

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 adds meaningful semantics for the required arguments parameter ('ordered raw argv', 'no shell', 'long CLI flags', absolute paths), but it does not explain timeout_seconds at all beyond the schema's title/default.

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 a specific mechanism: queuing ordered raw argv for CLI flags with no shell, and notes it supports all installed CLI actions rather than GUI-only functions. It is clear enough to distinguish this from GUI-oriented siblings, though it does not explicitly say 'execute an Orca CLI command' or differentiate from the many dedicated API tools.

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?

It gives scope ('all CLI actions in the installed version, not GUI-only functions') and path expectations, but it does not say when to prefer this generic CLI escape hatch over dedicated siblings such as project_inspect, settings_read, or mesh_inspect. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions beyond the GUI-only distinction.

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