cutbolt_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful routing behavior: routed commands never delete files or cancel jobs, long-running work uses job.start, and cutbolt_schema supplies complete arguments. It does not describe per-command side effects or return behavior, but it meaningfully extends the safety and routing context beyond annotations.

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 key routing and safety guidance is front-loaded before the category list. The domain categories are somewhat lengthy but earn their place by helping the agent navigate a very large command enum.

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 complex router with a large enum and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers usage routing, safety exclusions, long-running jobs, and argument lookup via cutbolt_schema. It does not attempt to describe return values or per-command behavior, but those are impractical here and the routing context is strong.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds that arguments are the command's usual arguments and directs the agent to cutbolt_schema for complete arguments. This gives useful semantic guidance beyond the schema's bare 'Command to run' and 'arguments' descriptions.

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 states a clear verb and resource: run a command from the enum with its usual arguments. It also distinguishes itself from direct siblings by saying 'Prefer direct tools when listed,' though the large enum means individual command purposes are not mapped beyond category hints.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: prefer direct tools when listed, use direct job.cancel/cache.prune for deletion or cancellation, use job.start for long-running work, and use cutbolt_schema to get complete arguments. These are concrete routing rules with exclusions.

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