run_shell_command

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions gating via agent-sudo and a narrow allowlist, but does not explain error behavior, output format, or what happens when a command is not in the allowlist.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and behavior. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema and the tool's nature (shell execution), the description lacks details on output format, error conditions, and specific allowlist content. It suffices as a demo reference but is incomplete for robust use.

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% with parameter description 'Command line to evaluate.' The tool description adds that the command will be classified and gated, providing extra context beyond the schema, but still relies on the schema for basic parameter definition.

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 it is an executor that classifies and gates commands via agent-sudo, executing only a narrow allowlist. It clearly conveys the restricted shell purpose but uses 'DEMO/REFERENCE' which slightly obscures the core action.

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 it is not a general shell and directs to embed agent-sudo for real commands, giving context for when to use the tool (demo/reference) and when not to (production).

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