gx3_run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool is read-only, restricts to MCP-allowed commands, rejects mutating operations, and confines local artifacts to GX3_MCP_OUTPUT_DIR. It does not describe error behavior or exact execution semantics, but the key safety-relevant traits are clearly stated.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by constraints and routing guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information with 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?

For a generic command-running escape hatch without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the essential constraints: allowed scope, rejected operations, artifact confinement, and sibling tool preference. It could be more complete with an example or note on command availability via gx3_list_commands, but the core guidance is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it safely.

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 50%: command and root have descriptions, while args and timeout_seconds do not. The description adds useful context by noting commands must be MCP-allowed and project-read-only, and that args are explicit, but it does not explain how to format args or how timeout behaves. It partially compensates for the schema gaps but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 ('run') and resource ('GX3 CLI command'), and frames itself as an 'escape hatch' for cases where typed tools don't fit. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling typed tools by naming them as preferable when they do fit.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer typed tools when one fits, and defines the boundary of what is allowed: MCP-allowed, project-read-only commands only. It also states what is rejected (project-mutating commands and local demo generation), giving clear selection guidance.

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