run_shell_command

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

The description contradicts the annotations: the annotation `destructiveHint: false` indicates the tool is not destructive, but the description says 'Always confirm with the user before running destructive commands,' implying it can be destructive. This is an annotation contradiction, so score is 1 per the rubric.

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 four sentences, each contributing useful information (purpose, enablement, timeout, safety). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary filler, though slightly longer than strictly needed.

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?

For an arbitrary shell execution tool, the description covers key operational details: output fields, safety enablement, timeout range, and destructive-command confirmation. It lacks working-directory or environment context but is generally complete for typical usage. The contradiction slightly detracts from overall completeness.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates the timeout default and max, which the schema already covers, and does not offer new semantic details for the `command` parameter.

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 'Execute an arbitrary shell (bash) command' with a specific verb and resource, and mentions stdout, stderr, and exit code. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific system metrics.

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 implies usage for arbitrary shell commands, but does not explicitly provide when/not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. The context of being disabled by default and the need for user confirmation for destructive commands are useful, but there is no direct comparison to other tools.

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