run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: new process, statelessness, hard timeout of 300 seconds, no background mode. The description also forbids interactive processes and certain types of commands. It does not mention error handling or output format, but the output schema likely covers returns. Overall, it is fairly transparent.

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: a single-sentence purpose followed by bullet-point limitations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy. The critical information is front-loaded, and the formatting (newlines, bullet dashes) aids readability.

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 command execution tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers statelessness, timeout, and forbidden uses. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., stdout/stderr), error handling, and security considerations. Given the complexity, some additional context would be beneficial, but the core functionality is adequately described.

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 low (33%), meaning only the 'timeout' parameter has a description in the schema. The tool description adds implicit context about timeout (the 300-second cap) but does not explain the 'command' parameter format or the 'working_directory' parameter beyond the schema's default. This is insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 executes a command in a new PowerShell (pwsh 7) process and is stateless. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('command in a new PowerShell process'), making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.

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 explicit negative usage guidelines, listing scenarios where the tool should not be used (long-running tasks, installers, large builds, etc.). However, it does not suggest alternative tools for those cases (no siblings listed), so while the guidance is clear, it lacks positive direction. This earns a 4.

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