acs_exec_raw

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool executes raw shell commands, but does not warn about the significant risks (e.g., potential damage to the server, missing safety checks, or required permissions). The 'advanced debugging' caveat is the only implicit warning, which is insufficient for a high-risk mutating operation.

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 that conveys the essential action and purpose without extraneous words. This is appropriately concise for a tool with minimal parameters, and no important information is buried.

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 the high complexity and risk of a raw shell command execution tool, the description is severely underspecified. It lacks any mention of return behavior, potential side effects, prerequisites, or whether the command runs on the server itself rather than connected devices. With no output schema and no annotations, this minimal description leaves major gaps for safe and correct usage.

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 input schema covers both parameters (command and timeout) with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, but the schema provides sufficient baseline meaning, so a score of 3 is appropriate as per calibration.

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 action ('execute raw shell commands') and the target ('on the ACS server'), with a purpose ('for advanced debugging'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acs_run_script which focus on predefined scripts, and acs_status which is read-only.

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 phrase '用于高级调试' (for advanced debugging) provides a clear usage context, implying it is not for routine operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls 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.