st.dev.run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the command is 'controlled' and that confirm must be true, which signals a safety guardrail. However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, output behavior, or failure modes for executing commands.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The mandatory confirm requirement is stated clearly. It is slightly redundant with the schema's scope enum, but overall it is an efficient, well-structured description.

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?

For a command-execution tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, this description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, timeout behavior, how args are passed, what 'controlled' means in practice, or what side effects may result. The minimal information provided leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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. It adds meaning only for 'confirm' by stating it is required to be true. The semantics of 'args', 'timeoutMs', and the distinction among the scope values are left entirely to the schema's enum names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 runs a controlled development command and names the three scopes (project-root, st-root, st-mcp). This is enough to identify the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like st.runtime.control or st.source.write.

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 a key precondition ('Requires confirm: true') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The 'controlled development command' phrasing only weakly implies its intended niche among the many sibling tools.

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