Running commands

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description still adds substantive behavior beyond them: the fixed pool of four run slots, the per-line return fields (slot number, state, elapsed seconds, command), and the exact sentinel output 'all run slots are free' when nothing runs. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is especially valuable.

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 what it returns, then the trigger, then the follow-up tool, then the alternative, then a one-word safety note. Every clause carries distinct information and there is 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exact return format, sentinel case, trigger condition, and sibling routing. An agent knows exactly when and how to call it and what it will see.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed and spends its words on output and routing instead. Nothing about parameters needs clarifying.

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: 'List the amiga_run commands that are running now', and immediately scopes it to daemon run slots, which separates it from amiga_ps (all tasks) 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when amiga_run timed out or seems stuck'), an explicit follow-up ('then amiga_break'), and an explicit alternative ('For all tasks on the machine use amiga_ps'), covering both when to use it and when to use something else.

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