bob_prompt

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: non-interactive execution and auto_edit approval (edits auto-approved, shell still confirmed). With no annotations provided, this fills a critical transparency gap about side effects. However, it does not cover other potential behaviors like output handling or error conditions, leaving some gaps.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the operative verb, mode (non-interactive), and key approval behavior. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool that runs a shell with potential file modifications, the description is somewhat terse. It conveys the approval mode but omits what the output looks like, whether it streams, or how errors surface. While the schema covers parameter details, the description does not fully contextualize the execution behavior beyond the approval policy.

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?

The input schema provides full documentation for all 6 parameters (100% coverage), including descriptions for mode, model, stdin, prompt, workspace, and include_directories. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 the primary action: running IBM Bob Shell non-interactively with a specific approval setting. The verb 'Run' and resource 'IBM Bob Shell' are explicit, and this distinguishes it from sibling tools like bob_version, bob_list_sessions, and bob_resume_session.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios (e.g., 'use this to execute a task, bob_list_sessions to view existing sessions'). The usage context is wholly implied by the tool name and purpose, not explicitly stated.

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