run

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: shlex parsing, timeout kill behavior with default and max, 1MB stdout/stderr limits, and ok=false on nonzero exit. This goes well beyond the raw schema.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with a short intro and clearly separated argument/behavior notes. Every sentence contributes execution semantics or limits, with no filler.

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?

Covers execution environment, argument parsing, timeout, output truncation, and error signaling. Combined with the presence of an output schema, an agent has enough to call the tool correctly without further context.

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 0%, but the description fully documents both parameters: command as a single string split with shlex, and timeout_seconds with default and maximum. It adds real meaning beyond the property names and types.

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?

States exactly what it does: 'Run a command in the workspace root'. The parenthetical '(not a shell)' and the command/timeout arguments distinguish it from file-tool siblings, so an agent can select it correctly.

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?

Gives clear context (workspace root, non-shell execution, command string format) so an agent knows when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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