run_command

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds 'DESTRUCTIVE operation with side effects,' which reinforces but does not significantly extend beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose additional traits like execution environment, permissions, or potential consequences.

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: first clearly states purpose, second warns about destructiveness. Efficient and front-loaded. Minor improvement possible by structuring with bullet points for clarity, but no wasted text.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values (e.g., stdout, stderr, exit code). It does not mention what the command returns or how errors are handled. With three parameters and destructive behavior, the description is insufficiently complete.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters (cwd, command, timeout). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 clearly states 'Execute a shell command,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also highlights the destructive nature, helping distinguish it from sibling tools like read_file or list_directory. However, it doesn't elaborate on the scope (e.g., arbitrary vs. permitted commands).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like write_file, delete_file, and task_list, the description should indicate that run_command is for executing arbitrary shell commands with side effects, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide criteria.

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