run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that commands are parsed into arguments, that dangerous commands (rm, dd, shutdown) are blocked, and that output is stdout/stderr. It doesn't detail what happens on blocked commands (error message? exit code?), but the safety restriction disclosure is valuable and goes beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then the fallback guidance, then safety restrictions, then output. Every sentence earns its place, though the output sentence is slightly redundant with the schema's absence of output schema.

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 generic command execution tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, safety, and output. It could mention what happens when a command is blocked or how timeout behaves, but the essentials are present. The sibling list is large, but the fallback positioning handles differentiation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the example format and the safety restriction context, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 arbitrary commands on the Kali system, with a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('command on the Kali system'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from dedicated tools by positioning itself as a fallback, which differentiates it from the many 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 explicitly says to use it ONLY as a fallback when a dedicated MCP tool is not available, and instructs to prefer dedicated tools for better validation and structured output. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative.

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