bash

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions creating files and directories, but omits that bash can modify, delete, or affect the system in unintended ways. No working directory, permissions, or error handling details are disclosed.

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 concise at two sentences and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds redundant phrasing ('other bash commands') but does not significantly impede understanding.

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 bash commands, the description lacks important context such as return format, error behavior, environment, and side-effect warnings. The absence of an output schema and annotations makes this a substantial gap.

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's only parameter 'command' has no description, and the tool description merely echoes 'bash command' without explaining syntax, examples, or constraints. With 0% schema description coverage, this fails to compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 the tool 'will execute a bash command and return the output', specifying the verb 'execute' and the resource 'bash command'. It distinguishes bash from siblings like python_code and write_file, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use bash versus alternatives such as python_code, write_file, or create_folder. The phrase 'useful for executing bash commands including creating files, directories' offers examples but no selection criteria, exclusions, or context.

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