execute_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses that the tool is simulated, poses critical risk, and never executes a real subprocess, providing all necessary behavioral context.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, no wasted words, and all critical information front-loaded: simulation, risk, and behavior.

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?

Given that output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, risk, and behavior adequately for a simulated command tool. Could mention output format, but not required.

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 100%, but the tool description adds value by reinforcing that the command is simulated and never actually executed, which goes beyond the schema's description of 'The command to (simulate) executing.'

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 'Execute a system command (SIMULATED)', which specifies the verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file and write_file by explicitly noting it's a simulation.

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 clear context by stating 'Denied by default. Never runs a real subprocess,' which tells the agent this tool is for simulation only. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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