RunCommand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions this is for '批量' (batch) operations and gives example use cases, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if commands fail on some instances, whether commands run synchronously or asynchronously, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool that executes commands on cloud instances with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and typical use cases. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. While it could potentially be more structured with separate sentences for purpose and guidelines, it doesn't contain any wasted words or redundant information.

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 that this is a command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, security implications, or execution behavior. For a tool that runs commands on cloud instances (a potentially sensitive operation), the description should provide more context about what happens when invoked and what to expect in response.

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 the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, types, defaults, and required status. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter info in the description.

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's purpose: '批量在多台ECS实例上运行云助手命令' (batch run cloud assistant commands on multiple ECS instances). It specifies the verb ('运行' - run) and resource ('ECS实例' - ECS instances), and mentions typical use cases like application management and resource tagging. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'RebootInstances' or 'StopInstances', which are also batch operations on ECS instances.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: '适用于需要同时管理多台ECS实例的场景' (suitable for scenarios requiring simultaneous management of multiple ECS instances). It gives examples like application management and resource tagging operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use RunCommand vs. RebootInstances).

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