run_command

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, so the description correctly aligns with that. It adds useful behavioral details like 'exact exit code' and 'pipe-pane output capture', but it omits potential side effects of executing arbitrary shell commands, blocking behavior indicated by the wait parameter, and interaction with tmux session state.

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 is front-loaded with the verb and key features. It is concise and avoids unnecessary filler, though the term 'pipe-pane' may be unclear to an agent without additional context.

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 a tool that executes shell commands (potentially destructive), the description lacks essential context: when to use it, what setup is required, how it relates to sibling tools like get_command_result, and parameter semantics. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description does not address the tool's operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no explanations for the four parameters (wait, target, command, timeout). This is a significant gap because the meaning of 'target', the effect of 'wait', and the role of 'timeout' are left entirely to the schema's default values.

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 uses the specific verb 'Run' with resource 'shell command' and highlights unique features ('exact exit code', 'pipe-pane output capture') that distinguish it from siblings like send_keys and get_command_result. However, it does not explicitly name the tool's relationship to a tmux session or clarify the 'pipe-pane' jargon.

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. Siblings like send_keys and get_command_result suggest a division of labor (sending input vs. retrieving output), but the description does not indicate when run_command is the appropriate choice or when it should be avoided.

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