bash_hitl

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the approval gate, the two-call interaction, and warns that destructive commands (rm, del, drop, etc.) are especially sensitive. It does not detail failure modes or response format, but the core behavioral requirements are well covered.

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 compact and well-structured with numbered steps and a front-loaded warning. No redundant sentences; every line contributes to correct invocation.

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 HITL tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation pattern, approval requirement, and risk warning. Missing only minor details like the shape of the second response or what occurs on rejection, but overall it gives an agent enough to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level semantics beyond the schema: it explains that approved:false is the first call and that sessionToken comes from the first lock or declare_intent_hitl, reinforcing how the parameters interlock.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Ejecuta un comando shell' (execute a shell command), which is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like edit_hitl or write_hitl. It also immediately flags the HITL approval nature, making the tool's role clear.

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 gives a concrete three-step correct flow: call with approved:false, use question() to present the command, then call with approved:true and the sessionToken. It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools, but it provides enough procedural guidance for when and how to invoke this tool.

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