system

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at file transfer, shell execution, clipboard manipulation – all potentially destructive – but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or safety considerations. For a tool that runs shell commands, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded, listing categories in a clear bullet-like fashion. However, it uses periods and line breaks inefficiently, and could be more structured. Still, it respects conciseness without excessive verbosity.

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?

With 14 parameters and many distinct actions, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values (no output schema), error conditions, or how different actions behave across platforms. The complexity is high, and the description fails to cover most of it beyond a high-level list.

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 high (93%) and many parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds little beyond listing action categories; it does not explain how parameters interrelate or provide additional context for the 'action' enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 lists 'System operations' and breaks down into categories like clipboard, permissions, files, shell, logs, which gives a good overview. However, it doesn't explicitly state the verb-resource pattern for each action, leaving some ambiguity about what 'system' does exactly. It distinguishes from siblings like 'app' by being system-level, but could be more precise.

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 vs. alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description simply enumerates sub-categories without advising when each is appropriate.

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