Run command on host

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

The description is otherwise very transparent about /bin/bash -lc, PowerShell, privilege-escalation blocking, and unguarded deletion. However, it directly contradicts the annotations' destructiveHint=false by stating that rm and Remove-Item are not blocked and do not prompt. Per the scoring rule, a contradiction forces a score of 1.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences: purpose, shell behavior, restrictions, and the critical deletion caveat. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers execution environment and safety caveats well, and the output schema handles return-value expectations. However, the destructiveHint contradiction and complete absence of parameter documentation leave the tool model incomplete and internally inconsistent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain command, cwd, or timeout_seconds beyond what their names imply. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific action (run a shell command), a precise resource (the real host as the current desktop user), and the shell variants used. This clearly differentiates it from sibling terminal_* and process_* tools.

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?

Provides clear execution context and one explicit routing rule: use file_delete for guarded deletes instead of shell deletion. It does not fully discuss when to prefer terminal_create or other shell-related siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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