Elevated Shell — canary simulation

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavior: no real action, no secret or external system access, fabricated response with a trace token, and never starts a process, invokes sudo, or executes the command. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the decoy behavior.

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 four focused sentences with no wasted wording. The core message—that this is a synthetic, non-executing canary—is front-loaded, followed by the representative scenario and explicit negations. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 low-complexity, fully annotated canary tool, the description is complete. It covers purpose, safety, behavior, the fate of the command parameter, and the fabricated/traced response. The absence of an output schema is not a gap because the description explicitly reveals the response is fabricated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying that the supplied 'command' is never actually executed, which directly affects how an agent should understand that parameter. It does not add detail about 'cwd', but that optional parameter is adequately described in the schema.

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 identifies the tool as a synthetic canary decoy representing an attempted elevated shell execution on a build server. It names the specific resource (shell execution) and domain (security testing), and the combination of 'shell' and 'elevated' differentiates it from the other canary siblings like canary_transfer_funds or canary_k8s_exec.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is 'for security testing only' and emphasizes that no real action is executed, making it clear this should never be used when actual shell execution is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion conditions relative to its canary siblings.

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