run_command

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

With no annotations, the description partly covers behavior (waiting for completion, sentinel-based detection) but lacks details on side effects (e.g., consuming output), error handling, or timeout behavior. More transparency is needed for a safe PTY command tool.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured with a clear separation of purpose and usage.

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?

The description omits important context such as what the tool returns (e.g., command output, sentinel confirmation) or how to retrieve output. Given three parameters and complexity of PTY sessions, it is incomplete.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what is already provided in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run a command in a PTY session and wait for completion', specifying the verb (run), resource (command in PTY session), and behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like send_keys, which sends keystrokes but doesn't wait for completion.

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 mentions 'sentinel-based detection' but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_keys or get_buffer. There is no 'when not to use' or differentiation from sibling tools.

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