runCommand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: text-only output (no file returns), sandbox-specific execution, and the need for separate endpoints for file results. However, it doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, or potential side effects of arbitrary command execution.

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 with zero waste. First sentence states core functionality, second provides crucial usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately.

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 command execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about output format and file handling limitations. However, it doesn't address potential risks, error handling, or execution constraints beyond the timeout parameter documented in the schema.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for adequate coverage through structured data alone.

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 the specific action ('run a command line command'), target resource ('on a specific linux sandbox'), and output format ('returns text output only'). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning separate endpoints for file operations, contrasting with tools like downloadSandboxFiles and writeSandboxFiles.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'For operations that generate files, you'll need to use separate file viewing and download endpoints.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like downloadSandboxFiles and listSandboxFiles, and implies this tool is for command execution only.

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