Run an Asterisk CLI command

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description says setting PBX_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true lifts the read-only restriction, permitting write commands. That conditional write capability contradicts the static read-only and non-destructive annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output behavior, then the default permission restriction and override. Every sentence adds useful context with no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the action, raw output, and permission modes. It is adequate, though it could say more about invalid-command behavior, output size, and when generic CLI use is preferable to a specialized sibling.

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%, and the schema itself already documents the single command parameter with examples. The description adds permitted-command examples but does not add syntax, format, or semantic details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource: running an Asterisk CLI command and returning raw output. It does not distinguish this generic escape hatch from more targeted siblings such as asterisk_channels, asterisk_endpoints, or asterisk_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It gives clear operational context: default read-only mode, permitted inspection command families, and the PBX_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE override. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer specialized sibling tools over this generic CLI tool, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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