Run Raw Meegle Command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a useful detail: "Uses spawn without a shell," which clarifies that arguments are passed directly without shell interpolation. However, it does not elaborate on potential side effects or output behavior, so it does not significantly exceed what annotations already convey.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a key technical implementation detail. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool is structurally simple with only one parameter, well covered by the schema and annotations. However, given the open-ended nature of a raw command execution, the description lacks context about what the command returns (e.g., raw stdout/stderr), and it does not caution about the broad destructive potential despite the destructiveHint annotation. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for an agent to anticipate behavior.

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 already provides a clear description of the only parameter `args` with an example: "Argument vector after the meegle binary, for example [\"project\",\"search\"]." The tool description merely repeats "argv array" without adding new meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: "Run a raw meegle CLI command as an argv array." This uses a specific verb (run) and resource (meegle CLI command), and the mention of "raw" and "argv array" distinguishes it from sibling tools that provide specific high-level operations like workitem_get or project_search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools. It does not mention that this is a fallback for unsupported commands, nor does it warn against using it when a higher-level tool exists. The phrase "raw" implies lower-level access, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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