Bash

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

Annotations already carry the non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, and destructive hints. The description adds valuable behavioral constraints beyond annotations: only one allowlisted command may be run, and shell composition via &&, pipes, redirects, or file readers is prohibited. This meaningfully clarifies the tool's execution model without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by exclusions and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of schema field descriptions or annotation content.

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 is complete for a command-execution tool: it defines the allowed scope, lists examples, names sibling tools for excluded use cases, and specifies important command-construction limits. Annotations cover safety and open-world traits, and the schema covers parameter details, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Command to run' by defining acceptable commands as allowlisted verification commands and forbidding chaining and shell constructs. Other parameters like cwd, timeout_ms, and workspace_id are already adequately described in the schema.

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 states precisely that the tool runs one allowlisted verification command in the workspace, listing examples such as tests, build, lint, typecheck, and project scripts. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding git status/diff and file inspection, which are routed to show_changes, tree, search, and read.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: verification commands like tests, build, lint, typecheck, or project scripts. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance for git status/diff and file inspection, naming the alternative tools, and warns against chaining commands with &&, pipes, redirects, or shell file readers.

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