run_command

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

Annotations already specify destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it executes 'arbitrary commands on the host with the server's privileges', which is a strong and important behavioral trait. It also details the capture of stdout/stderr/exit code and timeout behavior, providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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 and well-structured. It starts with a clear one-sentence purpose, adds a security note, then lists args and return format. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 that the tool executes arbitrary commands (a high-complexity operation), the description covers the return format and warns about privileges. However, it lacks details on error codes, encoding issues, or behavior when timed out. The available output schema (mentioned in signals) would fill some gaps, but the description itself is minimally complete.

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 has descriptions for each nested property (command, cwd, shell, timeout), so the schema covers the parameter semantics. The description only repeats the argument structure without adding new details or examples. Since schema description coverage is 0% for the top-level param, the description could have compensated but does not.

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 runs a system/shell command and captures stdout, stderr, and exit code. It is specific about the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_command_as_admin' or 'wsl_run', so it loses a point for lacking sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'run_command_as_admin' or 'ahk_control_send'. It mentions that it executes arbitrary commands with server privileges, implying caution, but does not give explicit usage context or exclusions.

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