shell_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It adds useful context by saying the runtime is authoritative and host context is redacted, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe side effects.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before qualifiers. Every word earns its place and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description conveys the key behavioral nuance (authoritative, redacted). It could add a hint about what 'host context' includes, but the output schema likely defines the return shape, so the description is largely 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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers this dimension. Per the baseline for parameterless tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description needs no parameter-specific details.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'shells', adding qualifiers 'authoritative runtime' and 'redacted host context' that clarify the tool's scope. It is easily distinguished from siblings like shell_read, shell_write, or shell_exec, which imply different actions.

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?

Usage is implied through the verb 'List' – an agent will know to call it for enumeration before operating on a shell – but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings or mention any exclusions or alternative tools.

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