run_shell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add useful behavioral context: commands run as the shell user, can read most of a stock phone, and cannot change protected settings. However, it does not warn that arbitrary shell commands can have side effects, hang, or be destructive, which is a significant omission for an un-annotated generic shell 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 well-organized and front-loaded: one-sentence purpose, usage framing, privilege caveat, then an Arg block. The examples are useful and not wasteful; the only minor redundancy is the Arg line duplicating the schema.

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 one parameter and output schema are present, and the core purpose/usage is covered. But because this is a generic arbitrary-shell tool with no annotations, a warning about destructive potential or hanging commands would be needed for the description to be fully complete.

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 schema already documents the command parameter. The description adds only the phrase 'command line' and largely repeats the schema's meaning, with no additional shell syntax, quoting, timeout, or execution details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a shell command on the phone') and immediately frames the tool as the escape hatch for cases named tools do not cover. This clearly distinguishes it from specialized siblings like list_apps or read_screen.

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?

Explicitly says the tool is for 'whatever the named tools do not cover' and gives concrete examples: reading a setting, listing files, checking what is installed, granting a permission. This tells an agent when to reach for it versus the specialized sibling tools.

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