run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the session prerequisite and the blocked-command policy, but says nothing about blocking vs. async behavior, timeouts, how stdout/stderr are returned, or the destructive potential of running arbitrary shell commands.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the prerequisite, and the restriction. The primary verb+resource is front-loaded and nothing is repeated.

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 2-parameter command-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the essential prerequisite and the key restriction, which is enough to call it. It remains incomplete on cwd semantics, execution/output behavior, and timeout or failure handling.

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% across 2 parameters. The description conveys only the obvious meaning of 'command'; the 'cwd' parameter is never mentioned, leaving its semantics (working directory relative to what base? default value?) undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a shell command on the server... over SSH'), and the sudo/doas/su/pkexec block immediately distinguishes it from the sibling run_command_sudo. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite ('Requires start_session first') and the negative condition that disqualifies this tool (sudo-invoking commands), which implicitly routes the caller to run_command_sudo. It stops short of naming that sibling or describing what to do if the command is blocked.

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