run_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool runs whitelisted shell commands but does not disclose output handling, error behavior, or whether the command runs in a specific directory or environment. This is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentence of 15 words, extremely concise with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose and immediately lists allowed commands.

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 a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential constraint (whitelist). It could be improved by mentioning that output is returned as stdout/stderr or that errors are non-zero exit codes, but it is largely sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description adds value by listing allowed command strings beyond the schema's generic description. The schema says 'must match whitelist exactly', and the description makes the whitelist explicit.

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 'Run' and the resource 'whitelisted shell command', listing specific allowed commands. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_files and search_code which are not shell execution.

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 explicitly lists allowed commands (npm run build, npm test, etc.), indicating when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the whitelist serves as clear guidance.

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