console_command

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects. It transparently states that 'Output is not captured' and that the tool is refused under a specific condition, which are important behavioral traits. It does not mention other potential side effects (e.g., persistence or state changes), but the disclosed information is valuable.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action and immediately providing critical caveats (output not captured, refusal condition). No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 simple nature and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information: what it does, the key limitation (output not captured), and a condition that affects invocation. It could arguably mention that the command may have arbitrary side effects, but that is implied by 'console command' in a world 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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter 'command' as a string, so the description adds no extra semantic depth. The parameter is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 ('Execute a console command') and the resource ('in the running world'), making the purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like eval_lua or call_function, but 'console command' is distinct enough in most contexts.

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 a condition for refusal ('Refused when allow_writes = false'), which gives some guidance on when the tool might be blocked. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites, so the guidance is only partial.

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