run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses policy evaluation, sandboxed execution, denied commands not run, cwd must resolve inside jail root or return CWD_ESCAPE, and unexpected errors become INTERNAL_ERROR. This is thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 sentences long, front-loading the main action and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient 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 tool's complexity (command execution, two parameters, no annotations, but with output schema as per context), the description covers policy, sandboxing, cwd constraints, and error scenarios. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not required. Completeness is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that 'command' is evaluated and run after policy check, and 'cwd' must resolve inside jail root with specific escape handling. This adds significant context beyond the raw schema.

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 evaluates command against policy and runs it sandboxed if allowed. It uses specific verbs ('evaluate', 'run') and identifies the resource ('command'). The sibling tool 'explain_command' provides contrast, making the purpose distinct.

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 implies usage context: use when you want to execute a command sandboxed after policy check. It details denied commands are never executed and cwd constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly name alternatives beyond the sibling name.

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