run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: runs in page context, accesses `window.__store`, result must be JSON-serializable, can dispatch any action and read any state, and is an escape hatch bypassing safety constraints. This is highly transparent.

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 slightly long but well-structured and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, context, usage restrictions, and safety warnings. Minor reduction possible but still effective.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the result is returned and mentions the context. It covers the snippet's capabilities and constraints. Could mention error handling or security implications, but overall adequate for a powerful escape hatch tool.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the snippet runs in page context, accesses Redux store, and must return JSON-serializable results. This compensates fully 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 evaluates an arbitrary JS snippet in the attached Firefox tab and returns the result. It specifies the context (page context with access to `window.__store`) and distinguishes itself from siblings by being an escape hatch for exploring Redux state and action shapes.

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 explicitly says to use for exploring Redux state and discovering action shapes. It instructs to use sparingly and only with explicit user permission, and warns that it bypasses safety constraints of other tools, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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