run_terminal_command

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond stating it runs a command and returns output. No annotations are provided. Important details like potential destructiveness, permission requirements, sandboxing, or handling of long-running commands are omitted, which is a significant gap for a command execution tool.

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 a single sentence of 14 words with no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality.

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?

Despite no parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to mention critical context like the security implications, that any shell command can be run, or what the output format (stdout/stderr) looks like. A command execution tool requires more completeness for safe and effective use.

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 no properties (0 parameters), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information since none exist. Per calibration, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4.

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 runs a shell command on the user's Mac and returns output, using specific verb 'Runs' and resource 'shell command on the user's Mac'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on browsers, file operations, or specific applications.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a shell command is needed versus using a dedicated tool like fs_list or safari_navigate. No prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions are mentioned.

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