box_exec

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

The annotation already marks this as non-read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and open-world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds a precondition that the box must be 'ready' and mentions the timeout cap (though redundant with the schema's maximum). It does not disclose potential side effects of running arbitrary shell commands, such as modifying files or network access, 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 very short with the main action front-loaded. The second sentence about timeoutSeconds duplicates the schema's maximum, so it's slightly redundant, but overall it's efficient.

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 shell command execution tool with no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, stdout/stderr handling, exit codes, or how results are retrieved. It also does not mention the synchronous nature or relationship to box_exec_background. The 'ready box' precondition is helpful but insufficient.

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 75%; three of four parameters have descriptions. The description adds no new parameter semantics; the only parameter mention ('timeoutSeconds is capped at 60') simply restates the schema's maximum constraint. No explanation of cwd or boxId beyond the schema is provided.

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') and names the resource ('a shell command in a ready box'), making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool box_exec_background, which likely also runs shell commands but asynchronously.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like box_exec_background. It only notes a timeout cap, which is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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