patina_call

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

The description discloses the targeting precedence (default working-directory workspace, overridden by workspace or sessionId, with the constraint about both resolving to same session if provided together). However, it gives no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior of executing commands. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but does not address these important behavioral aspects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential targeting details. No redundant or fluff content. Each sentence contributes meaning.

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 the tool's generic nature (executes arbitrary commands) and the absence of an output schema, the description is somewhat under-specified regarding return values and command-specific behavior. It relies on the schema to mention patina_capabilities for command names, but does not explain how outputs are returned or what errors might look like. The targeting info is complete, but broader operational context is missing.

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 description adds context to workspace and sessionId parameters by explaining their targeting roles, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage). The reference to patina_sessions in the description is helpful but marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the main semantic load.

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 an internal Patina Unity command, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like patina_capabilities (listing commands) and patina_sessions (listing sessions). It also specifies targeting scope (default workspace, alternative workspace, or sessionId). The verb 'Execute' and resource 'Patina Unity command' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the default workspace versus specifying a different project via workspace or targeting a specific editor via sessionId. It references patina_sessions as the source for session IDs, which orients the agent to the sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention patina_capabilities for command discovery, though that is stated in the schema.

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