Code MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Execute a shell command' implies a potentially powerful and dangerous operation, but the description doesn't mention security implications, permission requirements, side effects, or what happens to output. For a tool that can run arbitrary shell commands with no safety annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward function and is perfectly front-loaded with the essential information.

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 that executes arbitrary shell commands with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical context like security risks, permission requirements, output handling, error behavior, or how this differs from secure variants. The combination of high-risk functionality and minimal description creates significant 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 the schema already documents all three parameters (command, cwd, env) with basic descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as command syntax examples, cwd path requirements, or env format details. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 'Execute a shell command' clearly states the verb ('Execute') and resource ('shell command'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'secure_run_command' or 'run_custom_tool', which appear to serve similar purposes with different security or execution contexts.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'secure_run_command' and 'secure_run_command_sequence' available, there's no indication of when this basic execution tool is appropriate versus when more secure variants should be used, nor any mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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