run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so exceptionally. It reveals that the sandbox is long-lived, that prior files and packages are visible, that side effects persist until reset_sandbox, and critically that args is a list and shell splitting/quoting/piping do not occur.

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 efficient and front-loaded. Each sentence contributes: purpose, usage context, parameter clarification, return-shape reference, and long-lived side-effect behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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 no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the essential context: what it runs, when to use it, how args behaves, return shape, and sandbox persistence. It is slightly incomplete on cwd, env, network, and timeout_s semantics, but those are comparatively self-explanatory and the output schema covers return details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add important meaning for command and especially args — 'not a shell string: there is no shell splitting, quoting or piping' — but cwd, env, network, and timeout_s are left undocumented in both the schema and description. The coverage is partial: 2 of 6 parameters receive substantive explanation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run any command available inside the Wasmer sandbox, with arguments.' It then clarifies scope by positioning the tool for non-Python work and explicitly contrasting it with run_python, making it easy for an agent to distinguish from siblings like run_python and reset_sandbox.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it for non-Python work in the sandbox — a shell utility, or a binary that install_sandbox_package added.' This gives a clear selection rule and names the related sibling install_sandbox_package, and the mention of run_python's result shape reinforces the alternative.

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