set_cwd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses persistence and the precise effect on subsequent run_command calls. It does not cover edge cases like invalid paths or default distro behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 descriptions uses two short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every clause adds useful information about what the tool does and its consequences.

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 simple setter tool, the description covers the main behavioral contract. However, it omits details about distro selection, error handling, and whether the setting persists across WSL sessions, leaving some contextual gaps given the lack of annotations or output schema.

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 only 50%; the distro parameter has no description. The description mentions 'for a distro' but does not clarify valid values, defaults, or how to reference the distro, leaving a significant semantic gap that the schema does not fill.

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 ('Set') and resource ('persistent shell working directory for a distro'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like run_command by explaining how it affects future run_command calls.

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 provides clear context by explaining that subsequent run_command calls without an explicit cwd will use this setting. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the relationship to run_command gives a strong sense of when to use the tool.

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