metavr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that arbitrary CLI commands are executed, but says nothing about side effects, destructive potential, authentication requirements, execution environment, output format, or error behavior, despite this being a powerful command-execution tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The examples make the broad scope immediately understandable, and the ellipsis appropriately signals that the listed commands are not exhaustive.

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 one-parameter passthrough with full schema coverage and an example, the description is adequate to start forming a call. However, for a generic command-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about safety, available command syntax, and return behavior.

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 schema has 100% description coverage and already provides an example argument array. The description adds useful command categories such as devices, app install, logcat, and perf, but does not explain argument syntax, options, or JSON output conventions beyond the schema example.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run metavr CLI commands bundled with MQDH, with concrete examples like devices, app install, logcat, and perf. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from structured sibling tools such as list_apps or upload_build.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this generic CLI passthrough versus the many specific sibling tools like list_apps, upload_build, graphql, or auth_status. An agent can infer that it is for arbitrary metavr commands, but there are no explicit inclusions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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