runcon

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

Explicitly describes destructive nature ('potentially destructive', 'changes security domain') beyond the annotation. Adds safety instructions like --dry_run and --allow_context confirmation.

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?

Five sentences, each adding value: purpose, warning, usage steps, differentiation, and cross-reference. No redundancy.

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?

Covers all essential aspects: what it does, safety, key parameters, alternatives. No output schema, but description alone suffices for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds context by mentioning key parameters (--dry_run, --allow_context) and their roles in safety and preview.

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?

Clearly states the tool plans or runs a command under a specified SELinux security context. Distinguishes from sibling 'chcon' by specifying it's for command contexts, not file contexts.

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 tells when to use (test/enforce SELinux context transitions), when not to use (not for file contexts), and mentions alternative 'chcon'. Also notes requiring --allow_context and preview with --dry_run.

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