send_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that newlines are auto-added, that timeout should be increased for long outputs, and that the prompt changes when entering system-view. These are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose the exact return format or potential error behaviors, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a well-organized list of common commands and a note about system-view. While it is longer than a typical description due to the examples, every line contributes useful information and there is no fluff or repetition. It is structured effectively for quick scanning.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is fairly comprehensive. It explains the core action, provides usage examples, and gives practical tips like timeout adjustment and prompt change behavior. It does not specify the return format or error handling, but for a simple command-sending tool, the level of detail is sufficient.

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 describes both parameters (command and timeout) fully, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example command syntax and clarifying that newlines are automatically added, plus a recommendation to increase timeout for long outputs. This enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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's function: sending a command to the connected switch and retrieving the result (向已连接的交换机发送一条命令，并获取返回结果). It includes numerous command examples, making the purpose concrete. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool send_config, which likely also sends commands, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides many example commands (display version, ping, system-view) that illustrate typical usage, and notes about auto-added newline and timeout for long outputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_config or get_status, nor does it mention any exclusions. The usage context is implied through examples rather than explicit guidance.

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