run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the operator-gating requirement, but for a tool that executes an arbitrary remote command, it does not disclose execution context, privileges, potential side effects, or how command control is checked.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core action first and then the critical precondition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 high-risk arbitrary command execution tool with no annotations and minimal parameter coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still fails to provide enough operational and safety context for safe 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the device, command, or timeout_seconds parameters. The schema provides a device enum and a timeout default, but the description adds no meaning to the free-form command parameter or how it should be formed.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it runs an arbitrary remote command, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that read files or manage services. The added precondition about operator command control further sharpens its identity as a gated execution tool.

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?

The description gives a clear, explicit precondition: it may only be used after the operator enables command control. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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