klone_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the command is run by the remote shell (so pipes and redirects work), that it returns stdout, and that timeout controls wait time. It does not mention stderr handling, exit codes, or potential security risks, but for a command execution tool, this is fairly transparent.

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 relatively long but well-structured: it starts with a clear purpose sentence, then provides operational details in a logical flow, and ends with an orientation note. It could be more concise, but the length is justified by the amount of useful information. Front-loading is good.

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 there are only 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details, and orientation. It does not explain the output schema, but that is handled by the schema itself. It is comprehensive for a shell command execution tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `cmd` as being run by the remote shell with support for shell syntax, and `timeout` as controlling wait time in seconds with a default of 60 and a note to bump for expensive queries. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 begins with a clear verb+resource: 'Run a shell command on klone and return its stdout.' This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'klone_put_file', which handles file transfer. It precisely states what the tool does.

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 extensive guidance: it explains that `cmd` supports pipes and redirects, lists typical use cases (SLURM, job inspection), warns against long-running work and suggests using `sbatch` instead, and explains the `timeout` parameter with a suggestion to bump for expensive queries. It also recommends reading a quickstart doc for orientation. This explicitly tells 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.