run_alias

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool runs aliases and that some require approval. It does not disclose potential side effects, error behavior, or authentication needs, but it is consistent with annotations.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every sentence provides distinct value: purpose and a critical usage condition.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the core purpose and one important condition. However, it lacks details on execution context (local vs remote), error handling, or return format, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic value by re-stating the approved parameter's role ('User confirmed destructive/approval-gated alias') and implying that not all aliases need approval. No new meaning beyond schema for other params.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'user-configured command alias', and distinguishes it from generic execution by specifying 'declarative argv or remote recipe'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like remote_exec or agent_execute_todo.

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 provides a specific usage condition: 'Aliases with requires_approval need approved=true.' This gives guidance for when to set the approved parameter. However, it lacks any comparative guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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