anb_exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses side effects: 'spawns a real subprocess', 'default-deny', 'NOT idempotent (effects depend on the command)', requires Bob, 'Returns the exit code plus REDACTED stdout/stderr', and 'the raw secret is never returned even if the child prints it'. It also covers failure modes (denied or failed command returns non-zero exit_code with reason).

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and key constraints. It could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds meaningful information. The length is justified given the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (execution with secrets, allowlist, prerequisites), the description is complete. It covers behavior, side effects, prerequisites, return values, and failure modes. An output schema exists, but the description still explains redaction and return structure adequately.

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% (all three parameters have schema descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the KEY=VALUE form for env, placeholder resolution via Bob, no shell parsing for args, and absolute path requirement for command. This goes beyond the schema's formal definitions.

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's purpose: 'Run an operator-allowlisted command with named secrets injected into the child process's environment.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('operator-allowlisted command'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like anb_list (listing) and anb_redact (redacting) by being the execution tool.

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 guidance: 'default-deny, only commands matching a scope=mcp allowlist rule run', 'NOT idempotent', 'Requires an enrolled identity and a reachable, unlocked Bob'. It tells when to use (allowlisted commands) and when not to use (if command not allowlisted or prerequisites not met).

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