Run command

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only mentions capturing output with caps and a timeout. It does not explain behavior on timeout (e.g., process killed), error handling, or security implications beyond the allowed list. This leaves significant gaps for a process spawning 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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action: 'Spawn a process from the configured allowedCommands list.' No redundant information, every word is useful.

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 complexity (5 params, nested objects), lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain caps limits, timeout behavior, or how to configure environment variables. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool without additional 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?

Only the 'command' parameter has a brief description. Schema coverage is 20%, and the description adds no extra meaning for 'args', 'cwd', 'timeoutMs', or 'env'. The schema defines types and constraints, but the description does not clarify default values, env overriding, or how args are passed.

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 it spawns a process from an allowed commands list, capturing stdout/stderr. The verb 'spawn' and resource 'process from allowedCommands list' are specific and distinguish from siblings like 'list_processes' or 'write_file'.

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 implies the tool is limited to a configured list but does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives like 'call_api' or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites like verifying the allowed commands list or handling disallowed commands.

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