run_cli

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the safety triage: whitelisted commands execute, dangerous ones are rejected, and others need voice confirmation. This is valuable, though it does not mention return format or potential side effects, leaving room for improvement.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary verb and resource, then adds safety behavior and an example. Every part is relevant and there is no redundant or filler content.

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's complexity (shell execution with security controls) and absence of output schema/annotations, the description covers the core function, safety policy, and an example. Missing details like return value or cwd behavior are notable but do not undermine the overall utility; the description is sufficiently complete for typical agent invocation.

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 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by providing a usage example ('例句：run_cli(command='dir')') that clarifies the 'command' parameter. However, the 'cwd' parameter receives no explanation, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of semantic 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 executes shell commands ('执行 shell 命令'), using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its safety policy (whitelist, rejection, confirmation), which is unique among the listed tools.

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 implicit usage guidance by explaining when commands run directly, when they are rejected, and when confirmation is needed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the inclusion of a whitelist and confirmation workflow gives practical context for when to invoke this tool versus others.

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