Run Host Command

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the allowlist mode behavior and explicitly warning that 'This tool may change host state when unrestricted mode is enabled.' This goes beyond the annotations to explain the mode-dependent risk.

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 extremely concise, consisting of three short sentences that each provide essential information: the action/platform, the allowlist restriction, and the potential for state changes. No filler words or redundant details are present.

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 the output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the core purpose, platform, safety modes, and state-change risk. It does not fully explain the cwd restriction or timeout behavior, but those are documented in the schema. Overall, it is adequately complete for a potentially destructive command execution tool.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the meaning.

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 the tool's specific action: 'Run one command on this Linux or Windows host.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools (get_system_info, list_audit_events) which retrieve information, and the platform scope adds clarity.

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 context for when to use this tool (executing a command on the host) and hints at constraints via 'Allowlist mode blocks shell control syntax and unconfigured commands.' Direct alternatives are not named, but the sibling tools are obviously read-only and different, giving implicit guidance. No exclusions are stated.

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