read-command

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the allowlist restriction, example commands, and reinforces the no-modification guarantee, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, both dense and relevant. The core READ-ONLY and no-modification traits are front-loaded, followed by a usage preference. No fluff.

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 read-only tool with annotations and full parameter coverage, the description covers the purpose, usage, and constraint profile. It does not describe return values or error behavior, but with no output schema and familiar commands, this is acceptable.

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 schema documents the command and profile parameters. The description adds example allowlist entries but does not introduce meaningfully new semantic detail beyond the schema's own mention of the allowlist.

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 states a specific action ('Execute a READ-ONLY command from an allowlist'), names example commands, and explicitly claims no system modification. This clearly distinguishes it from write-capable siblings like run-command or privileged-command.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: 'Prefer this tool for all read operations.' It implicitly excludes writes by emphasizing READ-ONLY, but it does not name a specific alternative sibling for write operations. Clear context, minor omission of explicit exclusions.

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