run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether the command runs locally or remotely, if it requires elevated privileges, potential side effects (e.g., file modifications), error handling, or output format. This leaves significant uncertainty for safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded and zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 complexity of running shell commands (which can be high-risk with mutations and side effects), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as execution environment, security implications, error responses, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for safe agent operation.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what the 'command' parameter should contain (e.g., syntax, examples, allowed commands) or any constraints. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the parameter poorly documented.

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 'Run a shell command' clearly states the action (run) and target (shell command), providing a basic understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what kind of shell command or execution environment, making it somewhat vague. Since there are no sibling tools, differentiation isn't required, but the description could be more detailed.

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, such as for administrative tasks, automation, or debugging. It doesn't mention prerequisites like permissions, security considerations, or alternatives, leaving the agent with no context for decision-making. With no sibling tools, this is less critical but still a gap.

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