shell_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission validation ('Validated against AgentsID permissions') and typical allow/block behavior for read vs destructive commands. This provides significant operational context, though it omits details about output handling and error behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence efficiently adds crucial permission context without unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and permission constraints. It lacks details on output format and failure modes, but the simplicity of the tool makes this a minor gap.

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?

The schema already describes 'command' as 'The shell command to run' (100% coverage). The description adds value by illustrating concrete command examples (ls, cat, grep; rm, chmod) and associating them with permission outcomes, which aids in constructing valid inputs.

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 states 'Run a shell command' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from wrapper tools like git_run or ssh_run by covering arbitrary shell commands, even though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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 gives guidance on command types: 'Read commands (ls, cat, grep) typically allowed' and 'Destructive commands (rm, chmod) blocked unless permitted.' This helps the agent know what to run, but it does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus sibling tools like file_read or ssh_run.

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