iap_show_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that execution is read-only and restricted to a policy allowlist. It does not describe what happens for non-allowlisted commands, how target selection works, or whether output is raw text, but some of this is covered by the existing output schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and the most important safety constraint ('read-only') appears early.

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?

For a command-execution tool with optional targeting parameters and no annotations, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot tell whether iap_ip_addr and cluster_name are alternatives, complementary, or optional, nor what commands are on the policy allowlist. The output schema helps with return shape but does not resolve these input-selection questions.

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%, and the description does not compensate. The 'command' parameter is inferable from the tool name, but iap_ip_addr and cluster_name are left unexplained—there is no indication of their relationship, precedence, or whether either is needed when the other is absent.

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 action ('Run'), the resource ('Instant AP show command'), and important constraints ('read-only', 'policy allowlist'). It distinguishes this as a raw command runner from the structured sibling iap_get_* tools, though it does not give an example of an allowed command or specify what kind of output is returned.

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 implies this tool should be used when a raw, allowlisted AP show command is needed and structured data from sibling getters is not sufficient. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives, what conditions make it inapplicable, or how to choose between targeting an AP IP and a cluster.

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