run_shell_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It only mentions 'safety checks' without detailing what checks are performed, whether the command runs in a specific shell, or what happens on failure. It fails to disclose risks such as destructive potential or permission requirements.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a short parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded. This is an appropriate size for a simple tool.

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 tool executes arbitrary shell commands, which can have broad system impact. The description is missing critical context such as what types of commands are allowed, how environment variables are handled, whether the command runs asynchronously, and the nature of 'safety checks'. Even with an output schema, the operational context is thin.

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?

The input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all three parameters (command, timeout, working_dir), which adds basic meaning beyond the schema. However, it lacks additional context such as accepted formats, default shell behavior, or interaction between parameters.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Execute a shell command (with safety checks)', using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_applescript, which executes AppleScript instead of shell commands.

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 usage by stating 'Execute a shell command', which naturally indicates it should be used for shell commands. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like run_applescript. The safety check mention is a hint but not explicit guidance.

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