secure_run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'security restrictions' without explaining what happens when a command is disallowed, what the restrictions are, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is obvious from the name.

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 a single sentence that instantly conveys the core purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words.

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 tool has 6 parameters (including nested objects and boolean flags) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the security mechanism, how to check allowed commands (via sibling 'get_allowed_commands'), the meaning of 'commitResult', or return values. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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%, meaning all parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not elaborate on how parameters relate to the security restrictions.

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 purpose: 'Execute a command with security restrictions (only allowed commands)'. It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('command'), and distinguishes from its sibling 'run_command' by highlighting the security restrictions.

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 the tool is for running only allowed commands, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'run_command' or 'secure_run_command_sequence'. The context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer usage, but explicit guidelines are absent.

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