shell_cd

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the key non-obvious behavior—the change is persistent and affects later shell_exec calls in the session—but says nothing about failure behavior for a nonexistent path, sandbox/permission restrictions, or whether running commands are affected.

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?

One short sentence that front-loads the action and appends only the consequence that matters, with zero redundant text.

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 one-parameter, no-output tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what is mutated and the scope of the effect. Missing only error/prerequisite behavior for an invalid path.

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% and the single path parameter is documented as 目标目录路径, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds no format details (absolute vs relative, home expansion) beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb (修改/cd) and resource (持久化会话的工作目录) and states the downstream effect on shell_exec, which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling shell_cwd. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so differentiation requires the agent to infer it from the read/write contrast.

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?

It gives clear usage context: call this before running commands so that subsequent shell_exec invocations land in the new directory. There are no exclusions or explicit alternatives, for example pointing to shell_cwd for reading the current path instead of mutating it.

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