Run console command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a significant behavioral guardrail: administrative commands are refused unless the environment variable is set, and the tool returns raw command output. It does not detail failure modes or side effects, but the 'raw console command' framing signals arbitrary 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the admin restriction, and the usage routing. The most important information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

The description provides the essential facts: what the tool does, what the output is, a key restriction, and guidance on when to use it. It lacks details on output formatting or error handling, but for a simple one-parameter tool this is a minor 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?

The schema already covers the single parameter with a clear example and 'without a leading slash' instruction, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by suggesting valid command categories (time, weather, tp, give, say) and the admin-command restriction, which helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('raw server console command'), and makes it clear the tool returns the command's output. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling build tools by naming the kinds of commands it is for (time, weather, tp, give, say).

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 explicitly says to prefer the build tools and that this tool should be used for console commands like time, weather, tp, give, say. It also gives a concrete condition for admin commands being refused unless BLOCKWRIGHT_ALLOW_ADMIN=1. This is clear guidance on when and when not to use the tool.

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