remote_run_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safely quoted argument list' which hints at argument handling, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, exit code behavior, or output handling. This is sparse for an execution tool that could have significant impact.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but conciseness itself is achieved.

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 has 8 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, yet the description is only one sentence. While an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the absence of parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral notes makes it inadequate for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the eight parameters (program, args, cwd, env, profile, timeout, connection, output_limit), nor does it clarify the 'saved or ad-hoc target' concept in terms of profile/connection parameters. This is a serious gap.

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 runs an executable, specifies the safely quoted argument list mechanism, and notes it works on saved or ad-hoc targets. This distinguishes it from siblings like remote_run_script (scripts) and remote_execute (generic).

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 implies usage for running executables with controlled arguments on saved or ad-hoc targets, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like remote_run_script or remote_command_group_run. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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