Run an allowlisted development command

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description adds that commands are 'guarded' and shell operators are blocked, providing some behavioral context. However, it does not explain what 'guarded' entails (e.g., validation, sandboxing) or potential side effects beyond the annotation.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loades the essential purpose and constraints. However, it could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullet points for allowed executables) given the parameter count.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description lacks crucial details like return format, argument syntax, timeout behavior, and scenario-specific guidance. The agent may struggle to use this tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 40% (only project and cwd have descriptions). The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, such as how to construct 'args' or the meaning of 'timeoutSeconds'. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 runs guarded PHP/Laravel, Composer, npm, or Git commands, and blocks shell operators/arbitrary executables. It identifies the specific verb 'run' and resource 'development commands'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_artisan or run_npm, relying on the executable enum for disambiguation.

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 more specific siblings (e.g., run_artisan, run_npm, git_switch_branch). The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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