run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'allowlisted' but does not explain what happens if the command is not allowlisted (error/block). It also omits side effects, permissions, and execution environment details.

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, no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too short; adding a second sentence on limitations would not harm conciseness. Still, it is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The description is minimal given the tool's complexity (command execution, 2 parameters, no output schema). Missing info on return output, error handling, and default cwd behavior. A more complete description would include these details.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description need not add param details. It adds the context of 'allowlisted' but that applies to the tool overall, not specific parameters. The description does not enhance understanding of 'cwd' or 'command' beyond the schema.

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 'Run an allowlisted command in the workspace' clearly states the action (run), the resource (allowlisted command), and the scope (workspace). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_branch, read_file, or query_logs, which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. For instance, if a user wants to execute multiple commands or a script, this tool is unsuitable, but the description does not indicate such limitations or point to alternatives.

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