pv_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It does disclose the gating mechanism and the fact that execution is conditional on an ALLOW verdict Mend. However, it does not detail what happens on DENY, whether the command is actually executed after approval, or the response format. This leaves some uncertainty but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 a single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action (run a shell command) and immediately clarifies the key constraint (gated by PrivateVault). It is concise with no filler, and the two sentences are logically ordered: what it does, then the critical behavior.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential nature. However, it does not specify what happens on approval (does it return output?) or on denial (error?), nor does it mention any security implications beyond the gate. With no annotations, an agent might lack clarity on expected outcomes, but the description is adequate for a basic understanding.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters ('The shell command to run' and 'Working directory'), and coverage is 100%. The description adds no further parameter-level detail, such as expected format for cwd or command length limits. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: running a shell command with PrivateVault gating. It explicitly mentions the pre-execution decision step and the ALLOW condition. While it doesn't name specific sibling tools, the core functionality is clear and distinct from the file writing, HTTP request, and decision 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 context: this is for running shell commands that require PrivateVault authorization. It implies it should be used when a decision is needed before execution, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are not referenced, so an agent might not know when to pick pv_exec over pv_decide.

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