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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description supplements this by stating the command is 'without running it' and that path risk is based on workspace_root. These behavioral traits are not fully captured by the annotations, adding valuable context without contradicting them.

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 two sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. It packs essential information—decision enumeration, non-execution guarantee, policy options, and path risk—without redundant phrasing. 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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values. It adequately covers the decision types, policy defaults, and risk factors. Although it leaves cwd and shell semantics to the schema, the tool context is sufficiently complete for agent selection and invocation.

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%, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. It does add the default policy ('balanced') and the higher-risk heuristic for paths outside workspace_root, but the schema already documents these. Thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies 'Analyze a shell command before execution' and enumerates concrete decision outcomes (allow, notice, confirm, block). This clearly identifies the resource as shell commands, differentiating it from sibling tools like analyze_tool_call, analyze_url_risk, and inspect_file, which target other resource types.

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 usage by stating the tool inspects commands 'before execution' and explains policy options and workspace_root risk. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not recommendations, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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