run_command_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the operational flow (pass commands, collect responses, evaluate rules), which is useful, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or failure behavior. It is not misleading but leaves room for interpretation.

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 reasonably concise, leading with a one-sentence summary followed by a brief explanation of the template concept and typical usage. The two paragraphs are informative without excessive verbosity, though the second paragraph could be tightened.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity (multi-device command execution with rule evaluation) and an output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The description gives enough context about the purpose and usage to be workable, but does not cover prerequisites or failure scenarios, which reduces completeness slightly.

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 all three parameters with descriptions, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add new semantic detail about individual parameters beyond reinforcing the purpose of devices and the template name; it is sufficient but not enhanced.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource ('Execute a command template against specified devices with rule evaluation'), and goes on to explain that these templates are run-time templates that pass commands to devices and evaluate responses against rules. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command and render_template by emphasizing the multi-device and rule-evaluation aspects.

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 states that executed templates are 'typically used as Pre and Post steps' separated by procedures like router upgrades or service migrations, giving concrete usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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