Run Command (Kilo-Kit Hard-Gated)

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: a session hard-gate, security guardrails, and a timeout. It does not explain what the guardrails block or the failure/return format, keeping it short of a 5.

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 tightly-packed sentences with the mandatory execution action front-loaded and the gating requirement last. Efficient, though the heavy capitalization adds noise rather than substance.

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 7-parameter destructive command tool with no output schema, the description covers the key gating and safety framing. Return format and guardrail behavior are left implicit, but the annotations and schema fill most remaining gaps.

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 86%, so parameters like cwd, timeoutMs, and the narration fields are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Execute a terminal command') and immediately routes the agent away from alternatives ('Use this INSTEAD OF native Bash/terminal tools'). An agent can identify this as the sanctioned command-execution path without opening the 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?

Gives a clear use directive (prefer over native Bash/terminal) and a hard precondition ('Requires valid sessionId in ready state'). Lacks explicit when-not conditions or failure guidance, but the routing context is clear.

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