safe_execute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the screening mechanism (pattern-based, known-catastrophic patterns), gives examples, and explicitly states it is not a sandbox, clarifying that successful screening does not guarantee safety. It doesn't mention execution environment, output format, or side effects, but the core behavioral trait is clearly communicated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the crucial limitation. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, examples, and a key limitation. It could mention execution context (e.g., working directory, permissions) or return behavior, but is largely complete for an agent to invoke it.

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?

Only one parameter (command) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic detail. The description implies a shell command string via 'Run a shell command', which is minimal but sufficient for a single obvious parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (run) and resource (shell command) and adds the screening scope, distinguishing it from the sibling write/delete tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from safe_delete or safe_write beyond implied scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (use for running shell commands, screening is done), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or comparison to siblings. The safety net caveat hints at limits but doesn't route the agent to alternatives.

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