mm_run

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 to disclose critical traits: code runs as the user, inherits the environment, and has no sandbox. It also describes dry-run and confirmation workflows for risky operations, though it omits return-value details, timeout behavior, and failure handling.

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 short and front-loads the core purpose and safety behavior. The telegraphic bracket notation and semicolon-heavy phrasing are compact but make the classification rules harder to parse than necessary.

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?

It covers the most important behavioral risk, which is unsandboxed execution, and provides escalation steps for dangerous actions. But with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, it is incomplete on arguments, return values, and failure behavior.

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 schema has only 50% description coverage: 'script' is documented as a script file name, but 'args' is undocumented. The description does not mention either parameter or explain how flags such as --dry-run are passed, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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: run code with inherited environment and no sandbox. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mm_list, mm_setup, and mm_save by implication, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 procedural safety steps for '[write]' and '[irreversible]' operations, including dry-run and explicit confirmation, and routes repair to mm_save. However, it does not explain how an agent should classify an action as write versus irreversible, nor does it state clear when-not-to-use conditions.

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