wsl_run

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, establishing the tool's mutation profile. The description adds the behavioral detail that it captures stdout/stderr/exit code and returns a JSON structure, but does not disclose additional side effects or safety caveats beyond what annotations imply.

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, front-loading the purpose in a single sentence followed by a concise Args/Returns structure. It omits unnecessary elaboration and only includes information that 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, parameter list, and return format in a structured way, while annotations and schema fill in safety and parameter details. It does not describe error conditions or prerequisites beyond the distro example in the schema, but it is sufficient for a command runner.

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 schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (distro, command, user, cwd, timeout), so the description's list of parameter names adds no new semantic meaning. The term 'optional' for user, cwd, and timeout merely restates the schema's default null values, keeping this at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run a shell command' with a specific resource 'inside a WSL distro' and states it captures stdout/stderr/exit code. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_command, which typically target the Windows environment.

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 implies the tool is for executing commands within a WSL distro, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives or any exclusion criteria. While the context is clear, there is no mention of alternatives such as run_command for Windows commands, so guidance is only implied.

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