Run an arbitrary FamiStudio CLI command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context by specifying the exact command pattern and emphasizing 'no shell involved,' which is a meaningful security/safety disclosure. It also signals arbitrary-command capability via 'escape hatch,' while not contradicting any annotation.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the command syntax is compact and unambiguous, and the alternative-routing note is appended. Every sentence earns its place.

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 generic escape-hatch tool with 5 params and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, command shape, safety (no shell), and alternative selection. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but these are secondary for a wrapper tool and the annotations already cover safety profile. Minor omission is timeout semantics, but the parameter name is self-explanatory.

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 60% (extraArgs and timeoutMs lack descriptions in the schema). The description compensates for extraArgs by embedding it in the command pattern '[extraArgs...]', and clarifies how input/command/output map to the CLI. However, timeoutMs remains completely undocumented in both schema and description, and command examples are only in the schema—so the description only partially bridges the 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 identifies the tool as an 'escape hatch' for FamiStudio commands not wrapped by the server, naming specific examples (NSF export, ROM export, assembly export with exotic options). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting when wrappers like export_audio / export_text are preferred, so an agent can immediately tell this is the generic fallback.

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?

Explicitly states the condition for use: commands this server does not wrap. It also provides a direct alternative directive: 'Prefer export_audio / export_text when they fit,' giving an agent clear routing guidance. This is the strongest form of usage guidance—specific when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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