read-command

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it clarifies the tool does not modify the system, enforces a single-line-only restriction, and explains that line breaks cause refusal. It also provides a workaround, giving the agent actionable operational knowledge.

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 concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the tool's core purpose and read-only nature. Every sentence adds value, covering scope, preference, and a key limitation with a clear alternative.

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?

The description is complete enough for this tool's complexity: it covers the allowlist, read-only behavior, single-line limitation, and how to handle multi-line scripts. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation and fully documented parameters, an agent has sufficient information to invoke 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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage: command is described as a read-only shell command in the allowlist, and profile is described as a profile name. The description mainly reinforces the command parameter's constraints but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 READ-ONLY command from an allowlist, naming common examples like ls, cat, grep, and find. It also distinguishes itself from siblings such as run-command and privileged-command by emphasizing the read-only, allowlisted nature.

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?

It explicitly says to prefer this tool for all read operations, establishing when it should be used. It also gives a concrete alternative for multi-line scripts by directing users to upload with sftp-upload and run by path, which helps an agent avoid rejected commands.

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