gx3_run_command

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

With no annotations, the description discloses read-only scope and rejects mutating/demo commands, which is essential safety context. However, it doesn't describe return format, timeout behavior, or error handling, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and constraints, no fluff.

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 escape hatch is generally well-specified given its generic nature: it defines what commands are allowed and points to typed tools for common cases. Yet without an output schema, it could benefit from a line on result formatting or how to discover allowable command names, but that is available via sibling tools.

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 covers command and root descriptions, but args and timeout lack schema descriptions. Description adds 'explicit arguments' hint but doesn't clarify array format or timeout semantics, providing minimal added value over schema.

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?

Clearly states it runs any MCP-allowed, project-read-only GX3 CLI command, distinguishing itself from typed siblings as an escape hatch. The phrase 'when one fits' reinforces its role as a fallback for commands not covered by other tools.

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 instructs to prefer typed tools when one fits, and identifies rejected command categories (project-mutating, local demo generation), providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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