claude_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Safe arguments' implies some restrictive behavior but does not disclose execution semantics, potential side effects, or return behavior. A CLI runner without these details is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of important missing details, which is a trade-off but not a structural flaw.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It fails to explain what happens when the command runs, what output is returned, or what 'safe arguments' means, leaving significant uncertainty for an automated agent.

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%, and the description adds no information about the 6 parameters. 'Safe arguments' vaguely hints at the args parameter but doesn't specify constraints, defaults, or meaning. The description provides no additional value beyond the raw parameter names.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run' and the resource 'Claude CLI', making the primary action understandable. However, 'safe arguments' is ambiguous, and the description does not differentiate from sibling tools like codex_run or gemini_run beyond naming the specific CLI.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as codex_run or gemini_run. The only clue is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent to decide which CLI runner to invoke.

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