wsl_run

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description does not contradict. The description adds that output is captured (stdout/stderr/exit code), but lacks details on side effects, permission requirements, or error handling.

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 (two short blocks) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list of args/returns), but it is efficient.

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 presence of an output schema (implied by context), the description already details the return format. It covers the key aspects: input params, output structure, and basic behavior. Minor omissions include error handling and prerequisites (e.g., distro existence).

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 schema provides full descriptions for all parameters. The tool's description merely lists the parameters without adding new semantic info (e.g., default values or format constraints). With 0% schema description coverage (context signal), the description should compensate, but it does not go beyond the schema.

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 verb 'run' and the resource 'shell command inside a WSL distro', and specifies that it captures stdout/stderr/exit code. This differentiates it from sibling tools like run_command (host) and other WSL tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or wsl_create_temp. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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