shell_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool runs predefined commands, which suggests limited risk, but it does not disclose whether commands are safe, can modify state, or require permissions. For a command execution tool, more context on potential side effects would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise with one sentence and a list. It front-loads the action and enumerates choices without extra words. Every part of the description earns its place.

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's simplicity (1 required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is largely complete. It tells what the tool does and what parameters are accepted. However, it could mention the return format or any side effects for completeness, but this is minor.

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% for the single parameter 'command', and the description repeats the same list of available commands found in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 tool runs predefined commands from project config and lists the specific commands (build, test, dev, start, ps, logs). This provides a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like shell_bg_start which run background processes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. It does not mention alternatives like shell_bg_start for long-running processes or git_status for version control. Usage is implied by the listed commands, but no when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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