Run Base Plugin CLI

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: commands are 'pinned' and 'allowlisted' (a safety boundary) and output can be submitted on-chain via WalletChan (a write capability). However, it omits failure modes, approval/permission requirements, and what happens when a command is not allowlisted.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. The second sentence is slightly vague about what 'configured' runners and 'prepared transaction output' mean, but nothing is wasted.

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 12-parameter tool with nested object args, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It frames the security model and the optional submission path but does not explain how command/args interact, what a runner is, or the executionProfile flow, leaving gaps for such a complex surface.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema (including enum values, executionProfile formats, and submitPreparedCalls semantics). The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond that, so baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Run a pinned, allowlisted protocol CLI command from the local WalletChan MCP process,' and names the runner scope (configured Base plugin CLI runners). It clearly distinguishes itself from discovery siblings like list_base_plugin_runners, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with call_protocol_tool or load_base_plugin.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that a runner must first be loaded/listed), and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that list_base_plugin_runners is the discovery step and that call_protocol_tool is a different path.

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