run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well to explain the digest behavior, noise folding, the embedded id, and the non-destructive alternative of using `show` instead of re-running. But it says nothing about arbitrary shell execution being potentially destructive, exit-status/failure reporting, timeout side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and the key behavioral trait (digest vs. raw output), then the follow-up path. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return, and it does explain that the digest preserves errors/failures/summaries and ends with an id usable via `show`. It omits how exit codes or timeouts surface and what the id looks like, which are the remaining gaps.

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%, so `command`, `cwd`, `budget`, and `timeout` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter meaning (e.g., what happens when `budget` truncates, or how `timeout` interacts with the digest), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a shell command') plus the distinguishing return behavior (a short, lossless digest rather than raw output). It also names the sibling `show` as the follow-up for full output, so an agent can separate it from the read/list/outline family.

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 clearly routes the agent: use `run` to execute, then use `show` to fetch any part of the full output 'without re-running the command'. That is a concrete alternative and condition. It does not, however, state exclusions (interactive commands, long-running processes) or prerequisites.

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