run_command

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and open-world. The description adds important context by stating it executes arbitrary commands with the server's privileges, and details the captured output (stdout, stderr, exit code). It does not contradict annotations and provides transparency about the powerful, side-effectful nature of the tool.

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. The Args and Returns sections are minimal and directly useful, and there is no gratuitous text. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the rich schema annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, privilege level, output format, and timeout behavior implicitly through the return value. It does not provide an example invocation or explicitly state defaults (e.g., shell=true), but these are documented in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 description only lists parameter names ('command, shell flag, cwd and timeout') without explaining their meaning. Although the input schema contains detailed descriptions, the context signal indicates 0% schema description coverage in the tool description, and the description fails to compensate by adding semantics beyond names.

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's action: 'Run a system/shell command and capture its stdout, stderr and exit code.' It also specifies that it executes arbitrary commands on the host with server privileges, which helps distinguish it from siblings like wsl_run or run_command_as_admin, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of run_command_as_admin for elevated privileges, wsl_run for WSL commands, or any exclusion criteria. The broad statement 'executes arbitrary commands' implies general use, but that is not enough to guide alternative selection.

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