terminal-runner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the allow-list restriction, enforced timeout, and captured output, which are meaningful traits. However, it does not warn that npm/node/tsc commands can have side effects on the filesystem or describe exit-code/error behavior, which is a notable 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 that front-loads the core action, then efficiently adds the command list and the two key behavioral constraints. Every phrase earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and full schema parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers the essential operational details (scope, timeout, output capture) even though it omits side-effect warnings and explicit usage boundaries, which are already partially addressed by the clear purpose.

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 each parameter (command, args, timeoutMs) is already documented in the schema. The description adds context about the allow-list and timeout but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Executes') and a concrete resource ('allow-listed shell commands'), then enumerates the exact commands (npm, node, tsc). It also names two behavioral constraints, enforced timeout and captured output, which fully disambiguates it from sibling tools like ping, fs-reader, or git-observer.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever an agent needs to run npm, node, or tsc commands. The sibling list contains no other shell-execution tool, so the alternatives are implicitly clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name a specific alternative, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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