run_command

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds crucial context: the command runs as root, is UNRESTRICTED with no allow/deny-list, and returns a structured {stdout, stderr, exit_code}. This goes beyond the annotation and sets appropriate expectations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then a critical safety warning and alternative guidance, and ends with the return format. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 covers the essential aspects: purpose, safety, alternative tools, and return type. It omits details about the timeout parameter and lacks an example, but for a simple command-execution tool, this is largely sufficient. The return format is clear, and the destructive nature is well-flagged.

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 zero descriptions for the parameters, and the description does not explain 'cmd' or 'timeout'. While 'cmd' is implied by 'shell command', 'timeout' and its default of 60 are never mentioned, leaving ambiguity about units and behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 runs an arbitrary shell command on the NAS as root, with the specific verb 'Run' and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is unrestricted and unguarded, while others are more specific.

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 advises preferring specific tools (omv_rpc, docker, stacks) over hand-editing config, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also warns about the lack of restrictions, implying cautious use.

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