jumpserver_profile_run

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantive behavior: the same steps execute on every host, results are grouped per target and per step, non-READ steps are SKIPPED and reported rather than executed, and `expect` assertions produce PASS/FAIL verdicts. This tells an agent exactly what happens to unsafe steps and what shape of verdict to expect — context the annotation alone cannot convey.

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 a single dense but well-structured block: it leads with the core action, then qualifies step types and result grouping, with backticked keywords and caps for emphasis. Every clause carries information, though the packed prose is slightly heavy for a quick scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return shape (results grouped per target and per step, PASS/FAIL per step/target/overall). Combined with a fully documented 6-parameter schema and a safety annotation, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 100%, so the schema already documents runbook, targets, group, format, concurrency and accountByTarget thoroughly. The description reinforces the runbook name and multi-host targeting but adds no format, limit, or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a NAMED runbook ... across one or more servers') and immediately qualifies what a runbook is ('a reviewed, reusable recipe from config "runbooks"'). It implicitly separates itself from ad-hoc execution siblings (jumpserver_exec, jumpserver_run, jumpserver_batch) by emphasizing a named, pre-reviewed recipe, but never names those alternatives, so the 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 description makes clear you need a runbook name and can scope by targets or group, which is implied usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and never routes the agent to jumpserver_exec/jumpserver_run/jumpserver_batch for one-off commands, leaving the choice between runbook and ad-hoc execution unstated.

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