eos_command

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

The annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that this sends commands via OSC and is intended for mutating operations like record, patch, copy, and save. It does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or confirmation behavior beyond what the schema already documents for the confirm parameter. No contradiction exists.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and transport, then immediately states practical use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and a destructive annotation, the description is largely complete: it names the mechanism, the scope, and common operations. It does not describe return behavior or error handling, but there is no output schema and the intended selection context is sufficiently clear.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does reinforce that the text parameter is an Eos command-line instruction. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Send an Eos command-line instruction') and the transport mechanism ('via OSC (/eos/cmd)'), and gives concrete use cases: record, patch, copy, save, and CLI-only operations. It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from high-level sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named eos_new_command.

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 provides clear selection context: 'Use for record, patch, copy, save, and any CLI-only operations.' This helps an agent decide when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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