execute_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses execution timing behavior and the effect of on_timeout on return type (job_id vs partial output). However, it omits details on security implications, environment variables (env), working directory (cwd), and output handling beyond the max_output_bytes parameter in the schema.

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 sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance. It is efficient with no fluff, though a bulleted or more structured format could improve readability for an agent.

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 (9 parameters, output schema present), the description covers timing and timeout behavior thoroughly but omits details on cwd, env, max_output_bytes, and the structure of the output. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but the gaps in parameter context reduce completeness.

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 the description explicitly explains the purpose of expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, check_after_seconds, poll_interval_seconds, and on_timeout. It does not explain command (required), cwd, env, or max_output_bytes, leaving those to the schema alone. Overall, partial compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 action (execute) and resource (shell command) with explicit parameters for runtime, timeout, recheck interval, and timeout action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like sandbox_exec, leaving the agent to infer when to use this specific execution tool over others.

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 instructs the agent to deliberately choose timing parameters and provides guidance on when to use each on_timeout value: 'continue_background' for long work with job_id, or 'kill'/'return_partial' for bounded synchronous work. It does not, however, exclude scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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