command

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

Beyond the destructive/openWorld annotations it discloses the fail-fast policy and a crucial caveat that OK only means TRACE32 accepted the command, so effects must be read back with evaluate. It also warns that commands can execute host programs via OS.Command. What it does not cover — irreversibility of destructive commands or concurrency across sessions — is minor given the annotations already flag destructiveness.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and stop policy, then alternatives, then ordering constraint. Sentences are terse and occasionally clipped ('OK means TRACE32 accepted the command'), but nothing is filler.

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 destructive four-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers failure behavior, verification via evaluate, host-command risk, and call ordering. The only gap is any detail about what the per-line report looks like, which is left vague as 'reports what ran'.

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 lines, wait_s, deadline_s and stop_on_error are already documented. The description only adds that lines run in order and that stop_on_error governs skipping remaining lines, which is essentially a restatement of the schema.

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 and resource ('Run PRACTICE commands in order') plus the execution policy (stops at first failure, reports what ran), which separates it from script, run, and session_close without needing their schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes alternatives: script for DO, session_close for QUIT, run for Go when waiting for the target to stop. It also gives an ordering rule — wait for this reply before calling run because co-sent calls execute even if setup failed.

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