cw_run_command_classified

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 usefully discloses the return statuses (confirmed | did-nothing | unconfirmed) and evidence class, but it omits that destructive commands require an exact confirm name and says nothing about side effects, permissions, or keepOverlays behavior.

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 purpose and output contract, with no filler. The quoted contrast is purposeful and the status list is compact.

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 output contract, but with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no output schema, it leaves critical invocation details missing—especially parameter meaning and destructive-command confirmation requirements.

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 only 33%, and the description mentions none of the three parameters. It does not explain cmdId, confirm, or keepOverlays, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('menu command'), plus the reporting contract. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools such as cw_run_command, cw_verify_commands, or cw_command_evidence, so an agent cannot tell from this description alone when the classified variant is preferred.

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 phrase 'instead of claiming success from "nothing errored"' hints at an evidence-focused use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It never names cw_run_command or other alternatives, leaving tool selection to inference.

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