run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses the return values (stdout, stderr, exit code, filesystem diff, shell state) and mentions state-sharing via session_id. However, it does not clarify whether the sandbox environment imposes restrictions or how destructive commands are handled, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, environment, and output. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail or repetition.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains return values. The parameter count is low and both parameters are covered. The description explains the session_id behavior for state persistence. However, the nature of 'filesystem diff' and the exact constraints of the 'sandboxed Capsule environment' are not elaborated, leaving minor 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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (command and session_id) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already states, so a 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 that the tool runs a bash command inside a sandboxed Capsule environment, and lists the outputs (stdout, stderr, exit code, filesystem diff, shell state). This is specific, uses a clear verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools 'reset' and 'sessions'.

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 implies usage for executing bash commands within the sandbox, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., reset or sessions). No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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