run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the automatic failover from SSH to SSM when sshd is unreachable, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or failure modes for non-SSM instances, but the core execution behavior is transparent.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main action and scope, and the second adds critical behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key behavior.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main purpose and the notable failover behavior. It does not explain return values or error handling, but the schema covers parameter descriptions well. Overall, it is fairly complete for a reasonably complex tool.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default transport behavior ('auto' tries SSH then SSM) and the conditions for failover, which is not in the schema. This clarifies the 'transport' parameter's semantics beyond the schema's description.

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 verb ('Run a command') and resource ('any managed instance'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the execution mechanism (SSH with SSM failover). It provides specific context about the failover behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (for running commands on managed instances) and the automatic failover behavior, which guides selection of the transport parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative siblings like 'get_logs' or 'aws_call', so it slightly lacks clear exclusions.

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