run_occ

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to warn that arbitrary OCC commands can have destructive side effects or require elevated permissions, and it does not mention any safety precautions. The only added context is the container name, which is insufficient for such a powerful execution tool.

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 extremely concise, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and the parameter explanation is compact. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy, making it an efficient reference for an agent.

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, the description lacks crucial context for a generic command execution tool: no mention of error handling, exit codes, output format, or the potential for irreversible actions. The guardrails and usage constraints are absent, leaving the agent underinformed for a tool that can execute arbitrary privileged commands.

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 provides no per-property description (0% schema coverage), but the description compensates by explaining the 'command' parameter as an occ command string with concrete examples like 'status --output=json' and 'app:list'. This adds meaningful syntax guidance beyond the bare schema field.

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 clearly states the tool executes arbitrary OCC commands inside the Nextcloud container, with examples showing command format. It distinguishes itself from specialized sibling tools like get_status or optimize_db by emphasizing 'arbitrary' commands, making it the generic entry point.

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?

Usage guidance is implied by the word 'arbitrary', suggesting it can be used for any OCC command not covered by specialized tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over its siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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