run_host_command

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

Discloses behavior well beyond the annotations: it blocks until completion, defaults to a 30s (max 300s) wait, and an over-running command is stopped with Ctrl+C and returned with `finished: false` plus partial output. This tells the agent exactly what to expect from a long-running or infinite command.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and examples, then the completion/timeout semantics. No filler.

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 potentially long-running, non-read-only execution tool, the description covers purpose, scope, blocking behavior, and timeout outcome, and an output schema exists for return details. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for `timeout_secs` (the Ctrl+C stop and `finished: false` outcome) that the schema's terse 'maximum 300' does not convey.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (a Command Prompt command on a PC/laptop/server), with concrete examples. The 'PC, laptop or server' scoping implicitly separates it from the network-device CLI path, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like run_cli.

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 example commands (ping, ipconfig, tracert, nslookup, arp -a) and the `ping -t` note imply typical use, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and the sibling `run_cli` is never named as an alternative. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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