run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that SSH uses an interactive shell and WinRM expects PowerShell script text via pywinrm, which adds useful behavioral context. However, it omits other traits like side effects, permission requirements, or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences clearly stating purpose and adding key behavioral distinction. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 (session-based execution, multiple protocols) and existing output schema, the description covers core behavior but lacks context like session creation prerequisite, error scenarios, or connection to sibling tools. It is minimally complete but could better integrate with the broader tool ecosystem.

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%, yet the description does not mention any parameter (command, timeout, session_id) explicitly. It only implies session_id via 'existing session.' No details on command format, timeout semantics, or parameter constraints are provided, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 purpose: 'Run a command in the existing session.' It distinguishes between SSH and WinRM by specifying the execution environment (interactive shell vs PowerShell script text), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. Among sibling tools, this is distinct as it targets command execution in an existing session.

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 protocol-specific guidance (SSH vs WinRM) but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives like send_input or create_ssh_session. It assumes the agent knows to use an existing session but offers no when-not-to or alternative recommendations.

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