run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by explaining that mode can be read-only or config-push, which hints at safety differences. However, it does not disclose output format, side effects of config mode, permissions needed, or error behavior, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the mode clarification is useful and directly relevant. Every word earns its place.

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 three required parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain what target refers to, what format command should take, or what the tool returns. It is minimally viable but leaves important gaps for an agent to call it 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 provides no descriptions for any of the three required parameters, and the description only explains the meaning of mode (read/config). The target and command parameters are left entirely to inference. At 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more heavily but does not.

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 executes a command on a target device, which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_devices by focusing on command execution rather than device enumeration. The mode distinction adds further clarity to the purpose.

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 when to use the tool—whenever a command needs to be executed on a device—and notes the read/config mode split. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer the sibling list_devices instead. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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