Run Shell Command

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only and has open-world effects, but description adds little beyond stating it runs a command. It does not detail potential side effects, security implications, or that commands run in project directory is already implied.

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?

Two succinct sentences with no unnecessary words or structure. Every sentence provides value: purpose and usage contexts.

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?

Despite having output schema and annotations, the description lacks essential context for a potentially dangerous tool: no details on environment, permissions, error behavior, or safety warnings. 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage are left unexplained.

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 0%, and the description does not explain parameters (projectPath, command, timeoutMs, maxOutputBytes). The phrase 'in the project directory' hints at projectPath, but overall fails to add meaning beyond 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?

Description explicitly states 'Run a shell command in the project directory and return stdout/stderr', with clear use cases (tests, builds, local inspection). It uniquely identifies the tool among sibling tools that handle files, processes, etc.

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?

Description provides clear contexts: tests, builds, local inspection. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., for file operations instead of file.* tools), limiting full guidance.

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