Run Teaching Command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that errors return a Tutor Hotfix Diagnostic instead of throwing, and that dry-run is possible. However, it does not mention side effects of executing commands, the behavior of the is_dangerous flag, or any safety caveats, which are important for a command-execution 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 two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded and the output components are listed compactly. It is slightly long due to the enumerative output list, but every listed item adds meaningful context.

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 explains what the tool returns and how errors behave, which is good for a tool with no output schema or annotations. However, it lacks guidance on safety, dry-run usage trade-offs, and how optional parameters like cwd or concept affect behavior, leaving some practical 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 five parameters. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond mentioning dry-run in prose, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Execute (or dry-run) a shell command') and enumerates the full teaching card contents, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like verify_quiz_answer or get_next_roadmap_command, which handle different tasks.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever a shell command needs to be taught with explanation and practice materials. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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