Run Argv

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only states that there is no shell interpretation. It says nothing about the sudo escalation flag, the 120s timeout and what happens on expiry, environment/cwd inheritance, or whether the process runs synchronously.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the differentiator. Nothing is padded, though a single clause about sudo or timeout would have earned its space more than the terse 'safer than' framing alone.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a five-parameter execution tool with no annotations and a sudo flag, the description is far too thin. Escalation semantics, timeout behavior, and working-directory/environment handling are all material to correct invocation and are absent.

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% across five parameters, so the description should explain them. It only implies argv via 'argument list'; sudo, timeout, cwd and env are left entirely undefined in both schema and description, which is a real gap for a privileged execution tool.

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 ('Run a program with an argument list') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling run_command by ruling out shell interpretation. That contrast is the key selector an agent needs, though it does not say whether execution is blocking or what the tool returns.

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?

Gives a concrete condition for choosing this tool over run_command: arguments containing shell metacharacters. No explicit when-not guidance or other prerequisites (permissions, cwd availability) are offered, but the primary routing decision is covered.

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