eos_new_command

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

The destructiveHint annotation is true, so the destructive nature is already signaled. The description adds the specific action of clearing the command line, which is consistent, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like whether confirmation is required or what happens on failure. With annotations covering the primary risk, this is a baseline.

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 one concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the primary action. It is efficient and easy to parse, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and a destructive note, the description is severely incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, usage context, return behavior, and any caveats, leaving an agent with insufficient information to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of text, confirm, or terminator parameters. The phrase 'send an instruction' vaguely references the text parameter but fails to clarify formats or semantics, providing no compensation for the schema gap.

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?

Description states a clear action: clear the command line then send an instruction via /eos/newcmd, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling eos_command or explain when this variant is preferred, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eos_command. The description implies a clear-before-send workflow, but there's no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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