run_drgn_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or any rate limits. The examples hint at functionality but lack operational context.

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 appropriately concise with one sentence and helpful examples. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate examples from the main statement.

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 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and provides examples for the 'command' parameter, but doesn't address the other parameters or behavioral aspects, leaving significant gaps for a tool that executes code.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It mentions 'drgn Python code' which relates to the 'command' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'session_id' or 'truncate' do, their formats, or provide examples for them. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 states the tool 'Runs drgn Python code' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'run_crash_command' or explain what drgn is. The examples help but don't fully clarify the scope or differentiate from alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_crash_command' or 'start_session'. The description implies usage for drgn code execution but offers no context about prerequisites, dependencies, or appropriate scenarios.

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