run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the no-shell execution model, the need to pass arguments as an array, and the key credential-masking behavior. It does not mention exit-code or error-handling behavior, but the most important safety-relevant traits are surfaced.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core behavior, execution model, and output masking with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 schema documents all seven parameters in detail, and the description covers the core execution semantics and output privacy behavior. It stops the short of explicitly describing the full output contract, such as stdout/stderr or exit-code handling, but for its complexity the definition is still reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the structured parameter descriptions already handle most meaning. The prose adds marginal clarification by tying 'inject' to environment variables and 'args' to the no-shell array convention, but it does not substantially go beyond the 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 states a specific action and resource: run a local command with vaulted credentials injected as environment variables. It gives concrete examples (aws, terraform, gh, psql) and clearly positions itself as a local command runner, distinguishing it from the secret-management and HTTP sibling tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: running local CLIs or scripts that need injected secrets. It does not explicitly state exclusions or compare against siblings, but the 'local command' framing and examples make the intended use obvious.

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