run_shell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds important context about the operating system and syntax, but the term 'safely' is undefined, and there is no information about output format, error handling, side effects, or execution environment beyond the OS.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and then deliver a critical usage constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is reasonably complete in terms of syntax, but it lacks details about what the tool returns, whether it blocks, or what 'safely' means in practice. Without an output schema or annotations, this creates a moderate gap in the agent's ability to predict the tool's behavior.

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 already describes 'command' as a string, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance by specifying PowerShell syntax and warning against bash/linux commands, which directly informs how to construct the command parameter.

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 tool's action ('Run shell command') and its scope ('in project'), making it distinct from sibling tools like read_file or system_info. The additional note about Windows/PowerShell syntax further clarifies the intended usage environment.

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 provides concrete usage context by specifying that the OS is Windows and PowerShell syntax is required, with an explicit warning to avoid bash/linux commands. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is clear enough for most scenarios.

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