run_on_version

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds a small amount of context (version comes from an explicit installation rather than a global default) but says nothing about permissions, side effects, failure modes, or how 'typed actions' are resolved. For a tool that executes arbitrary actions with arbitrary parameters, this is thin.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and constraint, with no filler. Its brevity is genuinely efficient, though some of that brevity is under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

The tool is complex (arbitrary action + version + free-form parameters, nested object), has no output schema, no annotations, and no schema descriptions to fall back on. The description does not supply the missing execution semantics, so an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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 there are three required parameters including an open nested object. The description does not explain what form 'version' takes, what a valid 'action' identifier looks like, or how 'parameters' maps to the action. It only faintly ties 'version' to an installation.

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 the verb 'Run' and gestures at the resource ('an existing typed action') plus a scoping condition ('explicitly configured installation; no global switch'). However, 'typed action' is undefined and the description does not distinguish this tool from siblings like search_commands, list_capabilities, or the various run/inspect tools in a way an agent can act on.

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?

'No global switch' loosely implies an alternative path (a global/default configuration), but no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given. The agent must infer that the counterpart is a globally-configured run mechanism.

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