Shell-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Show system uptime' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify output format, error conditions, permissions needed, or whether it runs a shell command (which could have security implications). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 three words, front-loaded with the core action ('Show system uptime'). There's no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose efficiently.

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 low complexity (simple read operation, one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it doesn't address behavioral aspects like output format or error handling. For a basic tool, this is adequate but leaves room for improvement in context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the 'args' parameter as 'Command arguments'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond this, but with zero required parameters and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. Since the tool likely needs no parameters for basic uptime display, the description's simplicity is adequate, though it doesn't explain optional argument usage.

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 uptime' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('show') and resource ('system uptime'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (like shell_date or shell_w which also show system information), missing differentiation that would warrant a higher score.

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. With siblings like shell_w (which shows logged-in users and uptime) and shell_date (which shows current time), there's no indication of when shell_uptime is preferred or what unique value it offers, leaving usage context unclear.

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