command_run

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

Annotations already flag destructive behavior and non-read-only operation, so the bare 'Run' wording does not contradict them. The top-level description adds no further behavioral context such as side effects, write-safety gates, or return behavior; those details appear in the schema, not in the description.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the operation; it has no filler. Detailed flag semantics are correctly deferred to the schema rather than repeated in the description.

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 combination of the terse description, the rich flags parameter description, and the destructive/readOnly annotations gives an agent enough to invoke the tool safely. The main unresolved piece is the meaning of 'mirrorable', and there is no mention of output or error behavior, but for a command runner this is a modest gap.

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 100% schema description coverage, the parameters are already documented in the schema. The top-level description adds little beyond restating that the command is addressed by a space-separated path, which duplicates the name parameter'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 names a concrete action ('Run'), a specific resource ('one mirrorable Cobra command'), and the addressing scheme ('space-separated command path'). It makes clear this executes a command rather than searches for one, but it does not name siblings or explain the unexplained 'mirrorable' qualifier.

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 implies the use case: given a command path, run it. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over command_search, context, query, or workflow_submit; the only cross-reference is the schema's note to inspect available flags via command_search, which is not in the description itself.

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