执行命令

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true/readOnlyHint=false, it discloses that execution is foreground/blocking and that string commands are interpreted by a shell. The high-risk approval path through interactive_feedback adds actionable behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three terse sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by invocation preference and risk handling—each sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description fails to mention what the tool returns (stdout/stderr/exit code) or how failures surface. Several parameters are undocumented, so an agent still needs to infer key behavior for a tool with destructive potential.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the command parameter (array vs string) and shell behavior. cwd, env, stdin, and timeout_ms receive no explanation, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'execute foreground command in the workspace'. It also distinguishes invocation styles (argv array vs shell string) and names the approval sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.

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?

Gives concrete usage guidance: prefer argv arrays, string commands go through the system shell, and high-risk commands require interactive_feedback approval. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but no sibling command-execution tool exists to contrast with.

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