run_crossproject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It adds useful behavioral detail: supports pipes/redirects/chained commands and returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. However, it does not warn that shell commands can be destructive or have side effects outside the workspace, which is relevant for a command execution 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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose, then covers capabilities and typical use cases, each sentence earning its place.

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 what the command returns, where it runs, what shell features are supported, and when to use it. It does not discuss environment variables, shell profile, or destructive potential, but the schema covers the parameters and the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the description need not repeat parameter details. The description adds tool-level context about the workspace root, but it does not materially improve on the schema's per-parameter descriptions such as timeout, maxBuffer, or the workspace configuration caveat.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a shell command in a configured workspace root.' It also clarifies scope by noting the workspace is 'typically a companion repo outside the current project workspace,' which immediately distinguishes this from the read/write/edit/list/search sibling tools.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use for build tools, codegen, git operations, or any command that needs to run in the workspace directory.' It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling tools are clearly file operations rather than command execution, so the context is strong even without formal exclusions.

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