exec_command

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

No annotations are provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions timing, timeout actions, and job_id returns, but lacks clarity on security implications, side effects, or output handling. Partially informative but leaves gaps.

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?

Description is front-loaded with purpose and parameter list, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Explicit execution timing is supported' repeated). Could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers timing parameters but omits details on cwd, env, and max_output_bytes. It mentions job_id for continue_background, which aligns with output schema, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 0%, but description adds meaning for many parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and explains on_timeout values. However, parameters like cwd, env, and max_output_bytes are not elaborated.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'execute' and resource 'shell command', and distinguishes from siblings like 'sandbox_exec' by emphasizing explicit timing parameters.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use different timeout actions ('continue_background' for long work, 'kill'/'return_partial' for bounded sync work) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'sandbox_exec'.

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