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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses ~1s return latency, the state enum, nullable exit_code, bounded head/tail previews, retention limits (1 hour, 4 MiB per stream), capacity eviction with discarded-byte metadata, and that results survive agent restart but not host loss or migration. It also flags the guest-image prerequisite. The destructive/openWorld/idempotent hints are consistent with the described mutation and retry behavior.

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?

Front-loads the primary purpose and the return shape, then layers recovery, delegation, and retention constraints in descending priority. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no restatement of the name or title.

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?

Covers prerequisites (guest image), lifecycle (restart vs. host loss), output bounds, and the recovery path for a lost response. Although an output schema exists, the inline summary of return fields is consistent with it and does not substitute for it, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 real value on top by explaining the recovery contract for idempotency_key ('reuse the SAME idempotency_key, command and timeout') and by tying output behavior to the command's size. It does not elaborate on the name resolution or timeout bounds beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('shell execution tool for scripts, builds and commands') and scopes it to large-output workloads, which implicitly separates it from cloud_computer_exec. It also names the companion tool cloud_computer_command_inspect for follow-up operations, so an agent can place it in the toolset without opening a schema.

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 routes polling, byte-range reads, search, and cancellation to cloud_computer_command_inspect, and explains the idempotency-key recovery pattern for lost replies. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the sibling cloud_computer_exec (e.g. small/fast commands), leaving that comparison to the 'Preferred' framing.

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