Code Buddy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing critical behavioral traits. It doesn't mention security risks (e.g., arbitrary command execution), error handling, output format, or side effects like file changes, leaving significant gaps for a tool that runs shell commands.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of running shell commands (with security and behavioral implications), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address risks, output expectations, or error scenarios, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 the three parameters (command, cwd, timeout). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying execution in a project directory, which is partially covered by the cwd parameter's default. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Run') and target ('a shell command in the project directory'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'run_python' or 'curl_tool' that also execute commands, missing explicit differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_python' for Python scripts or 'curl_tool' for HTTP requests. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing shell access or project setup, offering minimal usage direction.

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