check_command

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

In the absence of annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it returns a verdict with blast radius, safer alternatives, and risk assessment. It is a read-only analysis tool with no destructive side effects, as implied by the analysis nature.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence and listing outputs and risk types efficiently without extraneous information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (allow/ask/deny verdict, blast radius, safer alternatives, context-aware risk assessment) and enumerates detected risks, providing complete context for an analysis tool.

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 100%, so parameters are already described. The description adds no further detail on the optional parameters (cwd, branch, format) beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 analyzes a shell command for security risks before execution, listing specific risk types. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on files, dependencies, or secrets by being command-specific.

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 use before running a command ('before execution') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among the many sibling security tools.

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