Run console command

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that output is captured, but does not disclose potential side effects, risk to the instance, or that raw commands may mutate state. This is a significant transparency 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and return behavior without redundancy or waste. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool's potential for side effects and the absence of annotations or an output schema, the description should cover safety considerations, parameter semantics, and edge cases. It only provides the basic action and return behavior, leaving critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool safely and 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly indicates that 'text' is the command and 'instance' is the target, but does not explain the instance parameter's meaning, default, or format, nor does it clarify how the command is processed. Minimal additional meaning is provided over the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Send'), the resource ('raw console command'), the target ('running, bridge-patched Zandronum instance'), and the return behavior ('captured output'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like run_script, which execute scripts rather than raw commands.

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 implies usage for sending raw console commands but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_script, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the wording.

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