run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and reveals key behaviors: multi-host returns a JSON map of stdout/stderr/exit codes, background returns a log path immediately, quiet suppresses progress logs, and output abbreviation can be controlled. It omits side-effect/destructive potential and single-host return format, but the execution model is substantially disclosed.

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?

Three dense sentences with no fluff; the core execution statement is front-loaded and each additional clause explains a distinct behavioral feature. It is slightly packed but 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?

The description covers the main behaviors and output shapes for hosts/background modes, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, single-host output format is ambiguous, and for a no-output-schema, no-annotation command execution tool, the lack of error/side-effect context is a notable 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by connecting 'hosts' to the JSON map output, 'background' to immediate log-path return, and 'quiet' to progress-log suppression.

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 ('Executes'), a precise resource ('shell command on a single host or multiple hosts'), and clearly distinguishes between the 'host' and 'hosts' execution modes. It also implies separation from the query-oriented sibling tools (list_ports, search_processes, tail_log) by framing this as general command execution.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to prefer 'hosts' for simultaneous cluster-wide execution, which helps select the right parameter mode. It does not name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the core mode-selection guidance is actionable.

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