shell_command

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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the command's OS permissions and the shell selection behavior, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., arbitrary system changes, interactive input, or output/exit code format). The provided info is useful but incomplete for a high-risk shell 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no fluff. Each sentence adds a new piece of relevant information, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects (execution scope, environment, permissions). It could mention the return structure (stdout/stderr/exit code), but for a generic shell tool, the current level is sufficient. The schema covers all parameters, and the description adds enough context to be complete.

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 clarifying that workdir is relative to the configured shell root and by stating OS permissions, which enriches the command parameter meaning. It does not repeat schema details but complements them.

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?

Clearly states the tool runs a command with a working directory inside a configured shell root, and explicitly mentions default shells (PowerShell/Bash) and OS permissions. This uniquely identifies its function and distinguishes it from unrelated siblings like chatgpt_* or apply_patch.

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 about the execution environment (working directory, default shells, permissions) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or when not to. Since no direct alternative exists among siblings, the absence of exclusions is acceptable, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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