run_command

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only mentions running a command and returning output/error. It fails to warn about potential side effects, permissions, or the workspace context. The instruction to tell the user 'you cannot directly do it' is confusing and undermines transparency.

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 short but contains an extraneous sentence about user interaction that adds no value and distracts from the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are helpful but the overall structure is not tight.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a terminal command tool, such as security implications, side effects, execution time, or error handling. The confusing instruction creates ambiguity about the tool's actual capability, making the description incomplete.

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?

The schema lacks a description for the 'command' parameter (coverage 0%). The description at least explains it as 'The shell command to run,' providing some meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, quoting, or how to pass arguments, so compensation is minimal.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool runs a terminal command in the workspace directory, providing a specific verb and resource. However, the subsequent instruction about telling the user is unrelated to purpose and slightly confuses the primary function.

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?

The description includes a conditional usage hint ('If terminal command can accomplish the task') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions. The wording is awkward and lacks clarity for when to prefer this tool.

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