arno.run_command

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

The annotation already carries destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that the tool runs commands and returns a pass/fail verdict. It does not describe side effects or environment impact, but it does not contradict the annotations, so a middle score is appropriate.

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-loaded with the core action and outcome. Each sentence earns its place, though the phrasing 'No name lists the declared commands' is slightly awkward.

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 description covers the core behavior, the alternative for undeclared commands, and the list behavior when name is omitted. Combined with the schema's wait and timeout documentation, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly, though return details are brief.

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?

All three parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including default values and behavior when name is omitted. The description adds little beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 runs a repository-declared command by name and waits for a pass/fail verdict with decisive output. It distinguishes itself from shell use and from check, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the run_tests sibling.

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 gives explicit guidance: use this instead of a shell for anything check does not cover, and if no matching command exists, declare one once. This names the alternatives and the conditions that select them, leaving little to inference.

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