Raw control command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the command is sent 'verbatim' and specifically warns about `shutdown` stopping the service and live streams. This adds some behavioral context, but it does not mention other potential side effects, error behavior, or the lack of validation beyond the verbatim note. The warning is valuable but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then adding essential usage context. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotations. It is concise yet complete for its role.

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 raw command nature, the description adequately covers its purpose, when to use it relative to siblings, and a critical safety warning. An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. It could mention error handling or revocation, but for a fallback tool, the context is sufficiently 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?

The input schema already fully describes the `command` parameter with an example ('help' or 'use 1'), and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Send one command line to the service verbatim.' It also defines its scope as a fallback for 'anything the tools above do not cover,' distinguishing it from the specific sibling tools. The verb 'send' and the resource 'command line' are explicit and 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 for when to use this tool: for anything not covered by other tools, with a pointer to `help` for the full list. It also warns about the dangerous `shutdown` command. However, it does not explicitly state 'do not use this if a dedicated tool exists,' though that is strongly implied by the phrase 'do not cover.'

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