run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, whether execution is synchronous or queued, or the risk profile of an arbitrary command executor. Only the output schema exists to cover return values; behavior is essentially undocumented.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, but for a command-execution tool with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to determine valid inputs, side effects, or how it differs from batch_command and mission_queue.

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 coverage is 0% on the single 'command' parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Raw Baritone/mission command string' does hint at the accepted format family, which is better than nothing, but no syntax, valid command names, or examples are provided.

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 concrete verb ('Execute') and resource ('raw Baritone/mission command string'), which is more specific than a tautology. It only weakly distinguishes itself from siblings like batch_command or mission_queue, but the 'raw command string' framing does signal a low-level escape hatch.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named despite obvious candidates in the sibling list (batch_command for multiple commands, cancel_command for stopping, mission_queue for deferred execution). The agent must infer the intended context entirely.

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