execute_shell_command

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: command splitting (no pipes/redirects), sudo -u execution, system modification capability, timeout of 300 seconds, and return values (stdout, stderr, exitcode, user). However, it lacks details on security restrictions or behavior on command failure.

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 highly concise, using a few short sentences and bullet-like dashes. Every sentence adds value: purpose, execution details, user handling, safety warning, and return values. No unnecessary 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?

The description covers inputs, execution behavior, and return values (especially since an output schema exists). It alludes to safety and timeout. However, it does not mention prerequisites, failure modes, or interaction with sibling tools, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'command' is a program string split into arguments (no shell syntax), and 'user' defaults to null (root) and runs via sudo -u. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema types.

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 executes a local program as root or a specified user. It uses a specific verb ('uitvoeren') and resource ('lokaal programma'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like python_run, wp_cli, and git_command which target specific runtimes.

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 appropriate use (simple commands without shell syntax) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like python_run or git_command. No direct comparison or conditions for non-use are provided.

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