run_alignment_command

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 extra parameters merge into the command body at the top level, but does not warn that this is a raw escape hatch that could execute arbitrary alignment commands, potentially with side effects. Given the tool's broad power, this lack of caution or side-effect disclosure is a notable 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?

Three concise, information-dense sentences. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, how to discover command names, the escape-hatch use case, and parameter handling. No fluff or repetition.

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?

For a raw command runner with full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, parameter merging, and where to find valid commands. It could be more complete by mentioning likely return behavior or cautioning about destructive actions, but given the tool's intentionally open-ended nature, the current level is solid.

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 coverage is 100% (both command and parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining that parameters merge into the command body at the top level, and by pointing to get_alignment_state for discovering valid command names. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 a raw alignment tool command, positioning it as an escape hatch for commands without a dedicated tool. It distinguishes itself from more specific sibling tools like align_measurements or create_aligned_sum by explicitly covering the 'raw' and 'escape hatch' use case.

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 explicitly tells users to discover command names via get_alignment_state's availableCommands, and explains when to use this tool: for commands without a dedicated tool, such as impulse-mode alignment or 'Aligned copy'. This clearly signals when this tool is appropriate over more specialized alternatives.

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