hb_garden_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that execution may be gated by a flag, but does not clarify what 'explicitly enabled' means, who can enable it, what happens when disabled (error vs no-op), or any side effects. For an execution tool this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and appends the condition. It is efficient, though the vagueness of 'stored command' stems from under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

Given it is an execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-word parameter description, the definition is under-specified. An agent lacks enough to know when to invoke it, what authority is required, or what a disabled state yields.

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% but the only parameter description is 'Entry key.', which is terse. The description adds no meaning about what the key references or how it maps to a stored command. Baseline 3 applies since schema covers the structure, but no extra value is added.

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 states a verb ('Run') and a resource ('stored command'), which is clearer than the bare name. But 'stored command' is vague and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like hb_plug_run, hb_test_run, or hb_auto_run. An agent cannot confidently tell when to select this over those.

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?

There is a conditional clause ('if execution is explicitly enabled'), but no guidance on which sibling to use, no prerequisites explained, and no explicit when-to-use versus when-not. The condition is stated without clarifying how or where execution is enabled.

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