Run Raw i3 Command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific destructive examples (kill, restart, reload, exit) and a validation caveat, providing context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 with a list of examples, front-loaded with purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 an output schema exists (not detailed but present), the description covers purpose, usage, and warnings adequately. Slight gap: no mention of error handling or return format, but not critical for a raw command tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'command'. The description adds value by giving concrete examples of acceptable commands (marks, gaps, etc.), going beyond the schema's generic description.

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: running raw i3/Sway commands as an escape hatch. It lists specific use cases (marks, gaps, bar, scratchpad, reload/restart) and distinguishes from sibling tools by advising to prefer typed tools when available.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (operations without dedicated tool) and when not to (prefer typed tools like focus_window). Also includes explicit warning about destructive nature and advising validation.

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