Shell-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Show' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, what format the output takes, whether it's real-time or cached, or any rate limits. For a shell command tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 extremely concise at just three words ('Show system date and time'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in communicating the essential function.

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 simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete but inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'system' refers to (local vs remote), what format the output will be in, or any behavioral constraints. For a shell command that could have various output formats and behaviors depending on arguments, more context would be helpful despite the tool's basic nature.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'args' parameter documented as 'Command arguments.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'Show system date and time' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('system date and time'). It distinguishes from siblings like shell_uptime (system uptime) or shell_w (logged-in users), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more precise about what 'system' means in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to other date/time tools or system information tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts where it should or shouldn't be used. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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