run_process

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions auto-prefixing but omits critical details such as whether commands are destructive, output handling, failure modes, or permission requirements. The token saving claim is useful but insufficient.

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 short at two sentences and front-loaded with the action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is efficient but incomplete, resulting in a mediocre conciseness score.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely inadequate. It does not cover parameter meanings, return values, error states, or interaction with sibling tools. The description fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's capabilities.

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 only 33% (2 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter context, leaving most parameters (cwd, command, clear_cache, description) completely unexplained. This is a significant gap.

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 'Run shell command' as a specific verb and resource. While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cached_commands or execution_log, the core action is unambiguous.

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 mentions auto-prefixing with rtk for token savings, which is a usage hint, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cached_commands or resolve_uri. No context on prerequisites or best practices.

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