ejecutar_comando

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it will hang or fail on any prompt for input and hit the timeout. It still doesn't mention privilege level of the remote shell or that output of destructive commands is unrecoverable.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return values, then a short second paragraph for the non-interactive caveat. Two sentences plus one, every one earning 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally. But for a destructive open-world tool with 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves meaningful gaps: the timeout parameter is unexplained and there is no signal about the privileges the remote command runs with.

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% — none of the three parameters is documented anywhere. The description only obliquely references 'el servidor' and says nothing about timeout_segundos, which is exactly the parameter most relevant to the timeout behavior it describes. Given the coverage gap, the description needed to compensate and does not.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Ejecuta un comando de shell en el servidor") and even names the return payload (exit code, stdout, stderr). It never positions itself against the more specific siblings (leer_archivo, ver_logs, estado_sistema), so the agent must infer that this is the generic escape hatch.

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 operational guidance (must be non-interactive, use -y/--no-pager) but no selection guidance: nothing says when to prefer this over escribir_archivo or ver_logs, or when it should be avoided. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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