execute_command

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses default silent execution and the visibility toggle, but says nothing about the safety profile of running arbitrary shell commands, permissions, timeouts, exit-code/error behavior, or output size limits. For a potentially destructive command-execution tool that is a significant omission.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the visibility guidance. The parenthetical '(no visible block)' and the '5 consecutive commands' instruction are slightly awkward phrasing but do not pad the text.

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?

Covers the core action and the one non-obvious parameter, which is adequate for a 3-parameter tool. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description should have explained what 'captures its output' yields (exit codes, truncation, failure reporting) for an agent to call this reliably.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema for show_in_wave by naming the scenarios that warrant a visible block and the rule for consecutive calls. working_directory is left to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Executes a terminal command and captures its output'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like execute_pipeline, execute_with_streaming, execute_and_parse, ssh_execute, or wave_run_in_block, so an agent cannot tell from the description which execution tool applies.

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 does give real usage guidance, but only for the show_in_wave parameter (use it for builds/installs/multi-step processes; leave unset otherwise). It offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many alternative execution siblings, which is the harder selection decision.

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