Run a script (auto-route by endpoint OS)

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-routing behavior, OS-specific shell selection, and error condition. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first states the overall purpose, the second details the routing logic and error case. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 high schema description coverage and presence of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the key behavioral aspect (auto-routing). It does not need to repeat schema details. However, it could mention the destructive nature beyond annotations, but overall complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic detail for any parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 is a cross-platform script runner that auto-routes to PowerShell or Bash based on endpoint OS, and errors on Linux. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like action1_run_powershell and action1_run_bash_macos, which force a specific shell.

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 clear context on when to use (Windows/macOS) and when not to (Linux/unknown). However, it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling alternatives like action1_run_powershell or action1_run_bash_macos, which would help agents decide when to use this auto-route version vs. the specific ones.

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