run_command

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

The annotations already declare destructive, open-world, non-read-only behavior, and the description adds important context: the shell runs with MCP process privileges and should only be used with trusted commands. It also explains the return values, though it does not detail timeout side effects or specific command restrictions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and return values, followed by shell context, use cases, and a security warning. Every sentence adds useful information with no redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the return values (stdout, stderr, exit code). Combined with annotations covering safety traits and a fully described schema, the description gives enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and the schema already documents command, cwd, and timeoutSeconds with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: "Execute a shell command on the host machine" and states it returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from file-reading or code-related sibling 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?

It gives clear usage context: "Use for simple system tasks like checking versions, listing files, or running short scripts." It does not name alternatives such as read_text_file or inspect_file, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.

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