run_command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful operational context (database resolution, admin requirement for server-level commands) but does not warn that arbitrary commands execute with full privileges, may drop data, or may create users with credentials — and it casually demonstrates a createUser with a password without noting the side effect.

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 dense paragraph with the core capability stated first, followed by examples and the database-defaulting note. The JSON examples are long but each illustrates a genuinely different command category, so they mostly earn their space.

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?

For a 3-parameter, high-risk catch-all with no output schema and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the essential mental model: this is db.runCommand, here is the command document shape, and here is how the database is resolved. Gaps remain around the 'connection' parameter, the shape of the returned result document, and error behavior, but the core call is adequately specified.

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% — properties carry only titles — so the description must carry the load. It does a good job on 'command' (format and examples) and 'database' (default behavior, 'admin' for server-level), but the third parameter 'connection' is never mentioned in the description or the schema, leaving one of three parameters fully undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource (run any database command, equivalent to db.runCommand) and grounds it with four concrete command examples. It implicitly positions itself as the generic escape hatch next to typed siblings like find, aggregate, and create_index, but never says so explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 examples (serverStatus, usersInfo, createUser, collMod, explain) implicitly signal the class of operations this tool is for — administrative or unsupported-by-sibling commands — and the note about using 'admin' for server-level commands gives real routing context. However there is no explicit 'prefer find/aggregate/insert_documents when they apply' or any when-not-to-use guidance, which matters a lot for a catch-all tool.

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