run_terminal_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. While it mentions the return values, it fails to warn that executing a terminal command can have arbitrary side effects (e.g., modifying files, running network operations, or being destructive). For a command execution tool, this is a significant safety gap.

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 exceptionally concise, front-loading the main action and output, followed by a brief usage hint. Every sentence contributes value without 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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return values (stdout, stderr, return code) and a typical use case (builds/tests). However, it omits critical safety context and environment details, such as working directory behavior or potential side effects, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('command' and 'timeout') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 a specific action ('Run a terminal command'), the context ('in the project directory'), and the expected output ('Returns stdout, stderr, and return code'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_project_file or send_telegram_message, which serve different purposes.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Use for builds, tests, etc.'), which communicates when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, though the sibling tool names imply a distinct domain.

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