process_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses that execution bypasses the shell, that only explicitly allowlisted executables are permitted, and that the tool is disabled by default until configuration. It does not describe output behavior or side effects, but the security-relevant traits are well covered.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the important operational constraint (disabled until configured) is placed at the end 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential execution model, allowlist constraint, and configuration prerequisite. It lacks an explicit mention of return values or error behavior, and with no output schema the description could have added a bit more, but the critical calling context is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It explains 'command' as an allowlisted executable and 'args' through 'using argv directly', but leaves 'projectId' and 'timeoutMs' completely unaddressed. This is a meaningful gap, especially for projectId which is required.

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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('one explicitly allowlisted executable in a project workspace'), and the execution mode ('using argv directly, no shell'). This clearly distinguishes process_run from sibling file, project, and git 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?

The description provides clear usage context: it runs only allowlisted executables and is disabled by default until FORGEGUARD_COMMANDS is configured. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the unique execution role makes the intended use fairly unambiguous.

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