Run an AmigaDOS command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'The command can do anything a Shell can, including delete files.' It also discloses the blocking behavior, the merged stdout/stderr return shape, the '[return code N]' trailer with the meaning of each code, and that max_time triggers a Ctrl-C – context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return contract, then progressively narrower routing advice. Every sentence carries a distinct fact (return format, code meanings, danger, backgrounding idiom, stuck-command escape hatches, alternatives) with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the return contract: merged stdout/stderr followed by a '[return code N]' line with a decoding table. Combined with the timeout semantics and the windowed-program idiom, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters including the Ctrl-C/default-600s behavior of max_time. The description adds only the framing that the command is 'as typed in a Shell' and the example-style usage, so the schema is doing the heavy lifting – baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run one AmigaDOS command line ... and wait for it to finish') and immediately delimits itself against siblings: 'Prefer amiga_ls and amiga_read_file for looking at files' and 'use amiga_wait for its window'. An agent can place this tool relative to the file, window, and process siblings without opening any 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use alternatives with the condition that selects them: use amiga_ls/amiga_read_file for inspecting files, use 'Run >NIL: Program' plus amiga_wait for windowed programs, and amiga_slots/amiga_break for stuck commands. Both routing and exclusion guidance are present.

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