run_help_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that a help command is executed and its output returned, and frames it as a read-only capability check. However, it does not explicitly confirm the operation is side-effect free or note any restrictions on the 'text' argument, which is a meaningful gap for a tool that runs a binary server-side.

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 with no filler. The endpoint and core action are front-loaded, followed immediately by a practical usage example. Every word 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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough to understand its purpose, behavior, and intended use. It does not explain the exact output formatting or error conditions, but those are minor for a help-command utility whose output is simply returned. The sibling list contains no comparable tool, so extra disambiguation is unnecessary.

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%, with both 'mode' and 'text' already described clearly. The description adds useful context about checking encoders/filters/presets, but it does not provide additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('ffmpeg or HandBrake help command on the server') and clarifies that it returns the output. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools, none of which execute help commands, and explicitly names the POST endpoint.

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 gives clear, explicit guidance on when to use the tool: to check which encoders, filters, or presets the server's binaries actually support before writing transcode arguments. It does not state when not to use it or list alternatives, but no similar sibling exists, so exclusions are not necessary.

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