glm_shell_exec

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'whitelist-based' restrictions but fails to explain what happens on whitelist violation, side effects, or execution environment. The agent lacks critical behavioral context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without fluff. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient for quick 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 potentially dangerous tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, error handling, whitelist details, and security implications, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the whitelist concept already present in the schema's command description, adding no extra meaning. The schema already documents defaults and limits for timeout and cwd.

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 executes shell commands with restrictions ('제한적 쉘 명령 실행 (화이트리스트 기반)'). This distinguishes it from siblings like glm_code_run (code execution) and glm_http_request (HTTP requests), making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 usage guidance is provided beyond the description. It doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives like glm_cmd or glm_code_run, nor does it give any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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