run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals the session reuse behavior but omits critical details like whether the command blocks, captures output, handles errors, or what happens if session_id is invalid. Significant gaps remain.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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?

The description covers the core session reuse behavior, which is essential. However, without an output schema or annotations, it fails to explain return values, cwd semantics, or the purpose of terminal_name. It is adequate for basic understanding but leaves significant gaps for a 5-parameter tool.

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 input schema has very low description coverage (20%). The description adds meaning for session_id and create_session by explaining reuse logic, but cwd and terminal_name are left unexplored. It partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 function: executing a command in a reusable terminal session. The verb 'execute' and resource 'command' are specific, and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like command_status or kill_command.

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 explains when to reuse an existing session versus creating a new one via create_session, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for related operations, such as send_input or kill_command.

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