windows_shell_prepare

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this by stating it does not execute, and adds that parsing is static, suggesting no side effects. This is sufficient given the existing annotations.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action (parse and bind) and its non-execution aspect. It is efficient and well-structured.

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?

While it explains the main purpose, it does not describe the output of the preparation, how the bound command is used later, or interactions with other tools. Given the tool's complexity and unknown output schema, the description is only partially 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?

The description mentions several parameters (cwd, target, purpose, timeout) but omits others (shell, command, arguments, executable). It also references 'risk' and 'environment' which are not in the schema, causing ambiguity. Parameter meanings are not fully explained.

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's function: it statically parses and binds a PowerShell or native command to specified parameters, and explicitly notes it does not execute. This distinguishes it from execution tools like shell_run.

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 implies usage for preparation without execution, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks direct guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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