shell_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: 'Full system access' signals the elevated privilege/risk, and it names the exact return surface (exit code, stdout, stderr) plus the blocking wait. It omits auth/permission requirements and side-effect warnings, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action, return values, privilege scope, and usage condition all front-loaded. No filler or repetition.

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 an 11-param, mutation-capable tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (exit code/stdout/stderr) and the privilege level, while the rich schema covers parameters. It stops short of only because destructive/irreversibility guidance is absent.

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 schema already documents all 11 parameters in detail. The description adds only 'or the one you name' for the shell override and the return-value surface; it contributes little semantic detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline 3.

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+resource ('Run a shell command') and scopes it behaviorally with 'wait for it to finish' and 'short-lived', which implicitly separates it from shell_exec_async. It never names the async sibling outright, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

'Use for anything short-lived' gives clear positive guidance and, combined with 'wait for it to finish', implies that long-running work belongs elsewhere (shell_exec_async/shell_job). No explicit exclusion or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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