mavis_bash

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

The description discloses return values (stdout, stderr, exit code) and the behavioral constraint 'no shell interpolation.' With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden, but it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or how non-zero exit codes are handled. This is sufficient for basic understanding but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences long and every part adds value: purpose, return values, usage scenarios, and a behavioral guideline. It is front-loaded with the primary action and contains no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple with only three parameters, all documented in the schema. The description covers the core purpose, return values, and usage guidance, which is sufficient for selection and invocation. It could mention side effects or failure behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and schema richness, the current description is adequately 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (command, cwd, timeout_ms). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It indirectly implies cwd behavior by saying 'in the workspace,' but this is already in the schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Run a shell command in the workspace.' It also distinguishes itself from specialized sibling tools by explicitly positioning itself as the general-purpose CLI runner (git, npm, vitest, supabase, node, etc.), making it clear when to use this tool over a specialized sibling.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to run any CLI' with examples. It also gives a practical guideline: 'Prefer specific commands over shell scripts (no shell interpolation).' However, it does not mention any exclusions or when to prefer specialized siblings like mavis_git or mavis_supabase, so it falls short of a full 5.

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