run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'automatically adds protection' but lacks detail on what protection entails (e.g., sandboxing, permission checks, side effects). More transparency is needed for safe usage.

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 short sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it is slightly too terse and could include more useful information without sacrificing conciseness.

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 tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools are different, the description is minimal. It covers the essential purpose but lacks details on behavior, return values, and edge cases, making it less complete for a tool that appears to be a mandatory safety wrapper.

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 both parameters are described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter usage or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 must be called before executing commands and automatically adds protection. It distinguishes from sibling tools (respond_to_user, write_file, complete_task) which serve different purposes. However, the exact nature of 'protection' and what 'commands' refers to is vague.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool before executing commands, providing a clear usage context. It does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the directive is strong and unambiguous.

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