run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and return type, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., running destructive commands), privileges required, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that executes arbitrary commands.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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?

While an output schema exists and can describe return values, the description is incomplete for a potentially mutating tool. It omits usage guidance for the optional config_path, fails to warn about command side effects, and does not address the distinction from siblings beyond the word 'single'. The tool is not fully specified for safe and correct invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter-level details. It does not explain the purpose of 'command', 'hostname', or 'config_path', nor how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 tool runs a single enable-mode command on an EOS device and returns text output. It specifies the verb (run), the resource (EOS device), and the scope (single command), distinguishing it from sibling batch tools like run_commands and run_command_batch.

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 implicitly provides usage context by emphasizing 'single' command execution, which contrasts with the batch/plural sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions but still offers clear context.

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