execute_console_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description alone must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Run a console command' and gives examples, but it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an active editor session), permissions, or how output/errors are returned. This is a significant gap for an arbitrary 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 immediately states the action and resource, followed by helpful examples. It is free of any filler or redundant content, making it an excellent model of conciseness.

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?

Although the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description does not explain what happens after execution (e.g., whether output is returned, logged, or displayed). Given the potentially broad impact of executing arbitrary console commands, the absence of any note on results or behavior leaves it incomplete for safe/effective use.

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 schema only describes the 'command' parameter as 'Console command to execute', while the description adds concrete format examples like 'stat unit' and 'r.SetRes 1920x1080'. This helps the agent understand what a valid command string looks like, going slightly beyond the schema's bare definition.

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 ('Run') and the resource ('a console command in the Unreal Editor'), with concrete examples ('stat fps', 'r.SetRes 1920x1080'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_stat_command (specific) and execute_python (different interpreter).

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 imply when to use the tool but provide no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. It does not mention dedicated tools like run_stat_command for stat commands or execute_python for Python scripts, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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