system_run_command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that with 'permissions: none' (explicit auth requirement) and the explicit rejection of shell input, which materially shapes how an agent may call it.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the functional core is front-loaded before the constraining clause. The bracketed metadata is terse and appended rather than buried mid-sentence.

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 only one enum-constrained parameter, thorough annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to call this correctly. The input restriction and permission status are the only behaviors that mattered and both are stated.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param semantics — and it does, naming all three enum values (disk_usage, battery, uptime) inline. The enum in the schema is technically authoritative, so this repeats rather than extends, but it compensates fully for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

Specific verb ('Run') plus the exact resource (one fixed read-only utility), with the three allowed values enumerated inline. The clause 'No command string or shell accepted' pre-empts the obvious misreading an agent would have from the name 'system_run_command', distinguishing it from any general shell-execution 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 makes the usage constraints clear ('one fixed', 'no command string or shell accepted'), which tells the agent this is not a general-purpose executor. However, it never states when to prefer this over adjacent diagnostic siblings such as bridge_diagnostics or system_status, nor what conditions make each of the three utilities the right pick.

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