run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags this as an EXECUTION action, warns that the MCP client will prompt for approval, and pins the security boundary to HOMELAB_ALLOW_COMMANDS. It stops short of describing return contents (stdout/stderr/exit code) or failure behavior.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the safety/approval note, then the constraints. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant or 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?

For a mutating execution tool with no output schema, the description covers approval, allowlisting, and single-command limits, which is what an agent most needs before invoking. Minor gap: no hint about how results (exit code, stdout/stderr) are surfaced to the caller.

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 all four parameters (host, command, workdir, timeout_secs) are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the 'single command' nature of `command` and the project-directory constraint on `workdir`, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a dev command') with concrete examples (tests, build, typecheck, git) and scope ('inside a project directory'). It clearly reads as an execution tool, distinct from read_file/edit_file siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Gives clear operating context and hard constraints: an approval prompt will fire before execution, only a single command is allowed, and the binary must be present in HOMELAB_ALLOW_COMMANDS. It does not, however, compare against alternatives such as docker_* or db_query tools for related tasks.

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