Run gh CLI

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions 'no shell parsing', which is a behavioral trait, but does not disclose authentication requirements, side effects, rate limits, or error handling for a generic CLI runner.

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?

One sentence plus example. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Adequate for a simple command runner, but lacks details on working directory, environment, authentication setup, or return value structure. No output schema provided to compensate.

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 covers the single parameter 'args' with 100% description (type array, minItems 1, strings). Description adds value by clarifying array style and the 'no shell parsing' behavior, plus an example.

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?

Description clearly states it runs any GitHub CLI command with a specific verb 'Run' and resource 'GitHub CLI command'. Given sibling tools like gh_create_issue and gh_pr_list, this tool is the generic one, making it distinct.

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?

Description implies use for any gh command not covered by specific sibling tools, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gh_create_issue or gh_pr_list. No 'when not to use' guidance.

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