Send an ARexx command

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description reinforces this with concrete warning that some commands save, quit, or delete. It also discloses the return contract, the RESULT string or 'rc N (secondary M)' on error, plus case sensitivity of port names, which the annotations alone would not convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contract, followed by the safety warning and then the routing hints. No filler 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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains both success and error return shapes, so an agent knows what to expect. Combined with annotations covering destructiveness and a fully documented 3-parameter schema, nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the semantics of 'command' depend on the target program and by giving WORKBENCH examples such as 'getattr ...' and 'window ...', which the generic 'the command' schema text does not.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: send one ARexx command to a running program's ARexx port, and return its RESULT string. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming amiga_rexx for whole scripts and amiga_arexx_ports for port discovery.

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?

It states clear routing rules: use amiga_arexx_ports to find port names and amiga_rexx for a whole ARexx script. It does not spell out when not to use this tool, for example when the agent should prefer read-only inspection instead of a command that may save, quit, or delete.

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