run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dangerous nature, the host-shell (unrestricted) environment, and that the command is arbitrary. However, it does not describe the return value (e.g., stdout/stderr) or potential side effects/permissions, which would be useful for such a low-level 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 a single, tight sentence front-loaded with a danger warning. It includes essential guidance without any fluff, and every clause adds value.

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 tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but it is dangerous. The description adequately warns and guides usage, though it could mention what the tool returns (e.g., command output) or that it runs synchronously. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke safely.

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 input schema already describes the command parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds the word 'arbitrary' and clarifies the shell context, but these are largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 an arbitrary shell command on the Qinglong server, specifying the exact resource and action. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the host-shell scope and explicitly recommending dedicated tools like run_crons/run_script.

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 explicit guidance: 'Only for advanced use' and 'prefer dedicated tools (run_crons / run_script) when possible.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and when to choose alternatives, including naming the alternatives.

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