cli

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses critical details: FC reboot on CLI exit, auto-reconnection, persistence behavior for writes, motor safety gating (props_removed, armed refusal, never saved), and the difference between confirm_for_writes and props_removed.

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 long but every sentence is essential for a raw CLI tool with dangerous motor capabilities. It is well-structured with clear paragraphs for general behavior, safety warnings, usage preference, and parameter details. 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?

For a tool with high complexity and zero annotations, the description covers all essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, safety hazards, persistence mechanics, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. This is fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description provides a dedicated Args section explaining each parameter: command (without trailing newline), confirm_for_writes (allow and persist writes), and props_removed (safety for live motor test). This fully compensates for the lack of schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "Raw CLI escape hatch — run any iNAV CLI command directly." It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly recommending dedicated write tools for normal use and positioning this as the fallback for one-off 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "Prefer the dedicated write tools (they back up and verify). Use this for one-off commands the other tools don't cover." It also differentiates read-only, write, and motor command use cases with precise gating requirements.

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