shell_run

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing filesystem isolation and network availability, which is directly relevant for working with commands.

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 convey purpose and key environment traits without any fluff. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 command-execution tool with an output schema and robust annotations, the description captures core environment details (isolation, network) that affect command behavior. It doesn't discuss destructive potential, but annotations already signal that. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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 0% and the description does not explain the 'command' or 'timeout_seconds' parameters at all. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, even though it has the burden to do so.

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 a command in the WSL bubblewrap snapshot, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like windows_shell_run by specifying the WSL environment and notes key behaviors (host homes/windows mounts hidden, network enabled).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like windows_shell_run. Usage is only implied by the tool name and environment description.

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