run_powershell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: hidden process (no console window), returns stdout/stderr/exit code. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or security implications, which are relevant for an execution 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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 a tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers return values (stdout, stderr, exit code), the hidden-process behavior, and general use cases. It lacks details on error handling or execution policy, but is mostly complete for practical use.

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 all parameters (script, cwd, timeoutMs). The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide, thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'PowerShell script/command on this Windows host', with a specific detail about hidden process. It distinguishes from siblings like ssh_exec/winrm_exec by specifying 'this Windows host' and from run_program by focusing on PowerShell.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use for any Windows command, file, or system task.' This implies broad applicability on Windows, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria but is helpful enough.

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