run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says a command is run with secrets resolved, but it does not disclose that this may execute arbitrary, potentially destructive code, nor that confirmation may be required or that masking is enabled by default.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It loses a point only because it is terse to the point of omitting important safety and usage context.

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?

This is a potentially dangerous arbitrary-command tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not mention confirmation semantics, masking behavior, env-file handling, or agent-session requirements, so an agent cannot fully assess the implications of invoking it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented with meaningful detail. The description adds little beyond the overall concept of secret resolution in the environment, so 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 clearly states the verb and resource: it runs a command and resolves Proton Pass secret references in the environment. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'inject', which may perform a similar secret-injection role.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use 'run' instead of sibling tools such as 'inject' or other read-only utilities. The description also does not mention the confirm requirement or that this is intended for agent-driven commands rather than for general interactive use.

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