run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states what the tool does, but does not disclose potential side effects, privilege level, output format, or the risk of running arbitrary shell commands. This is a significant gap for a potentially destructive operation.

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 with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to the 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?

Given the tool's broad and potentially dangerous nature (executing arbitrary shell commands), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, exit codes, stderr handling, or whether the command runs with elevated privileges. The absence of an output schema makes the description even more essential, yet it provides almost no behavioral context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear definitions for command, timeout, and working_directory. The description adds no extra meaning, but since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Execute a shell command on the VPS via SSH' uses a specific verb (execute) and resource (shell command on VPS), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_file or list_services which are higher-level operations. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus dedicated siblings such as docker, firewall, or manage_service. It does not mention that this is a general-purpose fallback or that specific tools should be preferred for their domains, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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