shell_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is an arbitrary shell execution path, rates it as medium risk, and states that confirmation will be requested. It does not enumerate possible side effects, but for an intentionally broad escape-hatch tool the risk framing is meaningful and honest.

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 front-loaded: purpose first, then usage guidance, then risk/confirmation. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

The description covers the essential decision context: what the tool does, when to prefer alternatives, and its risk profile. Since an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The main missing context is the meaning of the optional parameters, but that is partly mitigated by the schema's defaults and names.

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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, but it only conveys the meaning of 'command' indirectly. The optional 'serial' and 'timeout_seconds' parameters are not explained at all, leaving the agent without guidance on device selection or timeout behavior beyond raw schema defaults.

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 and resource: running an arbitrary shell command on the device via 'adb shell'. It also explicitly positions the tool as the escape hatch for operations without a dedicated tool, which differentiates it from the many specific sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance: prefer the most specific tool over shell_run, with a concrete example ('tap' instead of 'shell_run("input tap ...")'). It also explains the rationale—readable logs and clearer confirmation prompts—making the when-to-use/when-not-to-use decision unambiguous.

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