run_program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses execution mode (direct, no shell, hidden process), output capture behavior, and lack of shell quoting. This is solid transparency, though it doesn't detail timeout/default behavior or error handling for non-zero exit codes, which would add further clarity.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence contributes: purpose, usage examples, differentiation from alternative, and a key parameter hint. No wasted words.

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 description effectively covers the tool's core behavior, usage context, and output capture. Since there is no output schema, it doesn't explicitly describe the exact return format, but it does state the captured fields (stdout/stderr/exit code). Combined with the parameter-rich schema, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the args array is passed verbatim with no shell quoting, which reinforces the schema's 'passed verbatim' note and clarifies a common point of confusion.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run'), specifies the resource ('native executable'), and clearly states the output captured ('clean stdout/stderr + exit code'). It also distinguishes itself from run_powershell by noting the reliability difference, which provides clear differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('console programs like gh, git, docker, node, python') and contrasts with run_powershell, warning against using it for native stdout capture. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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