命令审批门

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares the return shape (decision ∈ allow|deny|ask plus layer/reason), states that ask triggers a human-confirmation interaction (MCP elicitation) or explicit manual review, and specifies fail-closed behaviour returning deny when the service is unavailable. Failure mode and human-in-the-loop semantics are exactly what an agent needs before wiring this into a pipeline.

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?

Front-loaded with the decision-critical '何时使用 / 何时不使用' labels, then return values and failure mode. Every clause carries information (scenario, exclusion, output shape, fail-closed) and there is no 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?

Three parameters all documented, output schema present, no annotations needing compensation, and the description still adds decision semantics, human-review path, and fail-closed behaviour. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 command/cwd/server are already fully documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only implicitly touches parameters via the 'don't concatenate multiple commands into one string' constraint; it adds no cwd or server-override semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb + resource: judging whether a single shell command may execute, and explicitly scopes out non-shell operations (file I/O, HTTP calls). An agent can tell this apart from the generic sibling names classify/route/score because the description pins the domain to shell-command gating.

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?

Opens with an explicit 'when to use' clause covering three concrete caller scenarios (coding agent about to run, batch validation, human grey-zone review) and follows with three explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, including the anti-pattern of concatenating commands to bypass judgement and stacking on an existing host approval mechanism.

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