ShellSafetyChecker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the specific checks and states 'Returns findings,' which implies a read-only analysis. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive behavior, permission requirements, or failure modes, which is a gap given zero annotation support.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action, packs the key checks into a parenthetical, and concludes with the outcome. No wasted words or redundant content.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope and checks, but since there is no output schema, the vague 'Returns findings' fails to explain the return format or structure. For a checker tool with zero annotations and output schema, this leaves a notable gap in completeness.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (target and timeout), and the description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 clearly states the action ('Run the shell safety checker'), the resource ('shell scripts'), and enumerates the specific checks performed. The mention of shell scripts distinguishes it from sibling JS/Python safety checkers.

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 explicitly says 'against shell scripts,' which clearly implies when to use this tool over the JS/Python siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full guidance.

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