Shell run (async)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveness, open-world, non-idempotent, non-read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: ~5 ms return latency, run time equal to the command, async run_id contract, output fields, batch-safety, and a default cwd. Missing timeout/pagination limits or permission notes, so not a 5.

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?

Labeled sections (Use when, Avoid when, Speed, Output, Batch-safe) are front-loaded and scannable. Minor repetition: 'returns run_id immediately' appears twice, slightly blunting the conciseness.

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 destructive async shell tool with no output schema, the description explains the async flow, the output fields (run_id, running, exit_code, stdout_tail/stderr_tail), and timing. The undocumented 'shell' parameter is the main gap; timeouts and failure handling are also unstated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents 'command' implicitly and 'relative_cwd' via the '/app' default, but the 'shell' enum parameter (powershell/cmd/bash) is never mentioned in the description or schema. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Run a shell command') and immediately distinguishes its async nature from the sibling project_shell_status, which it names explicitly. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Explains when to use (build/test/lint/long-running commands) and when to avoid (very short commands needing immediate output), and gives the alternative flow (run then poll 0s). Explicit exclusion plus named alternative is the top bar.

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