run_command

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the return format (JSON with stdout, stderr, exit code) and the side effect of creating a new sandbox when none is provided. However, it omits details like execution environment permissions, timeouts, or whether commands are run in a persistent shell.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact Args list and Returns note. No redundant filler; every section serves a purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format. It doesn't address error conditions or sandbox setup prerequisites, but the self-contained behavior (creating a sandbox if needed) is explained. Overall sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section provides clear explanations for both command and sandbox_id, including optionality and behavior. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Run a shell command in an E2B sandbox' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_code by specifying shell commands, and from sandbox management tools.

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 gives context on how to use the sandbox_id parameter ('Optional sandbox ID to connect to an existing sandbox. If not provided, a new sandbox will be created.'), but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over run_code or other alternatives. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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