Run Command Template

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a write/possibly destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining that command templates "actively pass commands to a list of specified devices" and that "the output set is evaluated against a set of defined rules," clarifying the execution workflow. It does not contradict any 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: a clear one-line summary, an explanatory sentence about how command templates work, and a sentence about typical usage. It is reasonably concise, though the first sentence and the second sentence partially overlap in describing the execution action.

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 tool's complexity (executing templates on multiple devices with rule evaluation and potential destructiveness), the description explains the overall process and typical use case. It does not cover edge cases like failure handling or rule specifics, but the presence of an output schema and fully documented parameters means the description does not need to explain return values or all parameters.

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 parameters (name, devices, project) are already documented. The description adds some context by explaining what a command template is ("run-time templates that actively pass commands") and mentioning "specified devices," which aligns with the devices parameter. However, it does not add additional meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: "Execute a command template against specified devices with rule evaluation." It specifies a concrete verb (execute), resource (command template), and additional detail (rule evaluation), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command, create_command_template, and get_command_templates.

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 provides context on when to use this tool: "typically used as Pre and Post steps, which are usually separated by a procedure (router upgrade, service migration, etc.)." It implies the use case of validating device states around procedures, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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