execute_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: blocking execution, isolated shell by default, env var/CWD non-persistence, and reuse of stateful named sessions. It doesn't mention permissions or potentially destructive effects, but for a command executor this is adequate.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information about behavior and stateful sessions, with no wasted words.

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 covers the key nuances of the tool (blocking, shell isolation, stateful reuse) and is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it. An output schema exists, so omitting return format details is acceptable. It could mention the timeout parameter, but that is already in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that the default is an isolated shell and that using the same shell_name reuses a stateful session, enriching the schema's parameter descriptions. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 ('Execute') and resource ('a devbox'), and clearly states the blocking behavior ('block until it completes'), which differentiates it from the async sibling. It also explains the isolated shell default, adding scope clarity.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the default isolated shell vs. a named stateful shell, which is helpful for invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like 'execute_command_async' or 'pty_connect', though the blocking distinction implies when to choose this tool.

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