bash

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

Annotations already mark this destructive and not read-only, but the description goes further by disclosing full account access, sudo -n behavior, per-command cd scoping, and the need to inspect effects before retrying after timeout/cancellation/disconnect. This materially improves the agent's risk assessment.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct operational value: execution semantics, privilege level, state scoping, and retry safety. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 high-risk arbitrary-execution tool with no output schema, the description covers privileges, side effects, and retry behavior well. It stops short of describing what the tool returns on success/failure, but the safety-critical information an agent needs before invoking is present.

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 description coverage is only 25% (request_key), yet the description does not explain command, timeout, or workspace_id beyond naming 'command' in its first sentence and loosely referencing timeout. It does not compensate for the undocumented parameters with units, defaults, or relationships.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Run a real command on this workspace's computer using Pi.' It also clarifies this is actual execution rather than delegation ('without another model') and full account access, which clearly separates bash from sibling read/write/edit 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?

The context is clear: use this tool when you need real shell execution, and the retry caution tells the agent what to do after interruptions. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools (read, write, grep) or mention exclusions, leaving selection guidance mostly implied.

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