execute_command

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it mentions support for pipes and redirection, integration with command policy evaluation, and sudo configuration. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, which aligns with the tool's nature as a command executor, and the description doesn't contradict this. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error behaviors.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by key features and two concise examples. Each sentence adds value, such as clarifying capabilities and providing usage scenarios, though the examples could be integrated more seamlessly into the text.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 7 parameters) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's purpose, key features, and examples, though it could benefit from more explicit usage guidelines and behavioral details like error handling or security considerations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description provides examples that illustrate usage (e.g., command with output_format, working_directory with timeout_ms) but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose as '在系统中执行shell命令' (execute shell commands in the system) with specific capabilities like supporting pipes and redirection. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file operations or task management by focusing on raw command execution, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like sudo_config.

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. While it mentions integration with command policy evaluation and sudo configuration, it doesn't specify scenarios where this tool is preferred over other tools like task_manager or sudo_config, nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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