Exec a command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses non-interactive single-command execution, local/remote scope, exit-code and exact-output return, and termination at exit or timeout. It does not discuss permissions, authorization, or side-effect risk, which is a meaningful gap for an arbitrary command-execution tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contract, followed by usage constraints and the sibling alternative. There is no wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains the return contract (exit code and exact output) and timeout termination. With 86% schema coverage, parameters are largely self-documenting; remaining gaps are remote-machine prerequisites and safety/permission context.

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 86%, so the baseline is 3 even with no parameter details in the description. The description only loosely reinforces the `on` parameter via 'here or on another machine'; argv, line, env, cwd, input, and timeout semantics are left to the schema.

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 specific verb and resource (run one command), scope (here or another machine, without a terminal), and return contract (exit code and exactly what it wrote). It explicitly names herdr_run as the alternative, making it clearly distinguishable from 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use examples (git diff, ls, cat) and an explicit when-not/alternative rule: use herdr_run for anything long or interactive. This is a clear routing decision for an agent.

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