bash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only mentions execution and output, but fails to note that bash commands can modify the filesystem, have side effects, or require privileges. There is no mention of error handling, exit codes, or potential destructive behavior.

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 but contains redundancy. The second sentence repeats 'executing bash commands' and lists examples that add little value. It earns a middle score: acceptable length but not optimally concise.

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?

For a tool that can execute arbitrary commands, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return format, error behavior, environment, or security considerations, and lacks any comparison with sibling tools. The presence of an output schema or annotations would mitigate this, but neither exists.

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 schema has 0% coverage for the 'command' parameter, and the description adds minimal meaning beyond the tool name. It implies the parameter is a bash command string but provides no syntax, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic detail for reliable invocation.

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 executes a bash command and returns the output. The verb 'execute' and resource 'bash command' are specific, and it is distinct from siblings like read_file, write_file, python_code, etc., which handle other operations.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like python_code or the file-specific tools. The statement 'useful for executing bash commands including creating files, directories' is tautological and does not offer exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool over siblings.

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