onda_terminal_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'sends command + newline' behavior, which is useful, but it does not explain whether the command runs asynchronously, whether output is returned directly, or how errors are surfaced. This is a significant gap for a command execution tool.

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 sentences long, starts with the core purpose, and includes a brief elaboration of use cases. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the basics. However, it does not mention what the tool returns after running a command or direct users to complementary tools like onda_terminal_read for output retrieval. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, this additional context would make it more 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?

The input schema already provides clear descriptions for both 'id' and 'command' (100% coverage). The description adds only the 'sends command + newline' detail, which applies to the command parameter but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a command'), the resource ('in a specific terminal'), and a key behavioral detail ('sends command + newline'). It also provides concrete use cases (execute shell commands, launch processes, start other AI agents), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like onda_terminal_send_keys.

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 phrase 'Use this to execute shell commands, launch processes, or start other AI agents in separate terminals' gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like onda_terminal_send or onda_terminal_spawn, so it falls short of a full 5.

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