run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the SSH-to-SSM failover path, but says nothing about permissions required, command timeouts, whether the command is destructive, or what the response contains for an arbitrary-execution tool.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, and the core action is front-loaded before the transport nuance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool that executes arbitrary shell commands with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more about output format, timeouts, or permission expectations. The transport story is covered, but the mutation risk and result shape are not.

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 all three parameters including the transport enum are already documented. The description only restates the default and failover behavior the transport field already specifies, adding no new syntax or format detail.

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 (run) and resource (command on any managed instance), and the failover clause distinguishes it from generic exec tools. It does not name or contrast a sibling, but no sibling in the list overlaps directly (mcp_tool_call and api_request target different resources).

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?

It explains the default transport behavior, which implicitly tells the agent when each channel applies, but offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions versus alternatives like mcp_tool_call or api_request. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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