Run an ARexx program

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description earns its keep by explaining why: ARexx can reach any program's port and run AmigaDOS commands, so it can change anything. It also discloses the blocking/long-running nature and the return shape ('what it SAYs, then [rc N]') despite no output schema. It stops short of describing failure modes or partial output on timeout, so not a 5.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what it returns, how dangerous it is, and which sibling to use instead. Zero padding and the core action is front-loaded.

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 is simple (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), and the description covers the return value, the blocking semantics, the prerequisite, and the risk profile. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 both 'program' and 'max_time' are already documented in the schema, including the default wait. The description only restates that the program is supplied as text and otherwise adds no syntax or format detail; the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Run an ARexx program given as text') plus the blocking behavior ('wait for it to end'), and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling amiga_arexx, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it ('To send one command to one program's port use amiga_arexx'), and it names the prerequisite ('Needs RexxMast running'). That is exactly the routing information an agent needs before invoking.

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