windows_shell_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which signals mutation and risk. The description adds that it runs standard-user commands and that non-safe commands require local confirmation, which is useful beyond annotations. It also implies a warning about consuming a token. No contradiction.

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 conveys purpose, constraints, and safety requirement. No wasted words.

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 with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: it's a gated execution tool. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, but the output schema likely covers that. The description could mention what happens on failure or how to obtain a review_id, but that might be covered by sibling tools like 'windows_shell_prepare'.

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?

With schema description coverage of 0%, the description must explain the parameter. It mentions 'review token' and 'review_id' but doesn't explicitly map 'review_id' to the token. The connection is implied but could be clearer. The description adds meaning (what a valid review_id is), but not fully explicit.

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: consume a review token and run a reviewed standard-user command. It distinguishes itself from 'shell_run' by specifying it uses a prepared review token and requires confirmation for non-safe commands, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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: use when you have a prepared review token and want to execute a reviewed command. It contrasts with 'windows_shell_prepare' (which produces the token) and 'shell_run' (likely a less safe variant), but doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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