run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: synchronous execution, return values (exit code, duration, stdout+stderr), and output bounding via max_output with head+tail capture. It omits timeout behavior and potential side effects, but still provides meaningful transparency.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds essential return and output-capture details, earning every word.

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 an output schema exists and the tool is a command runner, the description covers core execution behavior, return values, and output limits. It does not mention timeout semantics or cwd/env/shell usage, but the overall context is reasonably complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 all six parameters. It only explains max_output and implicitly command, leaving cwd, env, shell, and timeout_ms to rely on schema defaults and names. This is insufficient for a 0-coverage schema.

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 shell command synchronously and waits for completion. This specific verb+resource+mode distinguishes it from siblings like start, send_signal, and list_processes.

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 'synchronously and wait for completion' phrase implies when to use this tool versus starting a background process, but the description never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it. Usage context is mostly implied rather than direct.

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