cluster_bash

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for transparency. It reveals routing logic (based on cluster load, command characteristics, node capabilities) and states that heavy commands are offloaded while simple ones run locally. It mentions returning execution result with node info and output. It lacks details on failure handling or timeouts, but overall provides solid behavioral context.

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 concisely structured with bullet points for routing criteria and parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded: the first line states the core function. No wasted words.

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 description covers routing logic, parameter details, and return value. With an output schema present, it does not need to detail return format. It is complete for a tool with 4 parameters, though it could mention error scenarios or security considerations. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: command (required), requires_os/requires_arch (force specific OS/architecture), auto_route (default true). It adds meaning beyond the schema by describing the purpose of requires_os/requires_arch and the auto-routing default. However, it does not enumerate all possible values for requires_os/requires_arch.

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 'Execute bash command with automatic cluster routing', specifying the action (execute), resource (bash command), and core behavior (automatic routing). It distinguishes from siblings like cluster_status (status check) and offload_to (manual offloading) by emphasizing automatic routing.

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 explains when to use the tool: for bash commands with automatic routing. It categorizes commands as 'heavy' (offloaded) or 'simple' (local). It also describes parameters like requires_os and requires_arch for forcing specific nodes. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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