termux_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It meaningfully covers environment setup (PATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH already injected), permission behavior (use_root=false default, use_root=true only for reading system databases), and usage safeguards (confirm absolute paths, never fabricate results, close session). It lacks warning that arbitrary shell commands can have destructive side effects, but the provided context is substantial.

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 overbuilt and repetitive. The 'Use when' list duplicates the later '触发场景' section, and the rule about closing session_id references a parameter that does not exist in the schema. Emojis and bracket labels add noise. The useful information could be conveyed in half the length.

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?

For a 2-parameter command execution tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, environment, and permission semantics well. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (stdout/stderr, exit codes, output truncation), and the session_id instruction is confusing because no such parameter exists. Adequate for invocation but with clear gaps.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that PATH/LD_LIBRARY_PATH are preconfigured so commands like 'python script.py' work directly, and it clarifies the use_root default and when elevation is appropriate. This exceeds the minimal schema descriptions for 'Shell 命令' and '是否提权'.

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 tool executes system commands in the Termux environment and gives concrete examples (Python, Node, Curl, SQLCipher). The verb+resource are specific. However, it opens with a reverse-engineering framing and says radare2 command execution should use this tool, which blurs the line with sibling r2 tools and prevents a 5.

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 explicit 'Use when' scenarios and says this tool must be prioritized for reverse-engineering questions. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the many r2 siblings, and it explicitly instructs using this for 'radare2 command execution' even though a dedicated r2_run_command sibling exists. This is misleading rather than merely incomplete.

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