bash

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential destructiveness, working directory, environment variables, or timeouts. The agent has no indication of side effects.

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?

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds context but is not redundant. However, it could be more structurally organized with bullet points for examples.

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 the complexity of bash commands, no output schema, and sibling tools covering file operations, the description lacks context on safe usage, working directory, environment, and when to prefer specialized sibling tools over bash.

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 single 'command' parameter has schema coverage of 0% (no description in schema). The description only adds generic examples, not syntax details, constraints, or format expectations, providing minimal added meaning.

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 it executes bash commands and gives examples like creating files and directories, distinguishing it from siblings (e.g., python_code, write_file). However, it could explicitly mention it supports arbitrary shell commands beyond those examples.

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 implies usage for shell commands (creating files, directories, etc.) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like write_file or create_folder, nor any exclusions (e.g., avoid interactive commands).

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