shell__run_script_echo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run a script and echo,' but does not mention side effects, return format, potential for shell injection, error behavior, or whether it executes arbitrary code. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 compact and front-loaded: a single sentence followed by param annotations. It wastes no words, though the phrase 'with prefix' is vague and could have been clarified. Overall, it is appropriately concise 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 description omits critical context: what script is executed, what 'prefix' means, and the expected output/response shape. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least mention return behavior, but it does not. This leaves the agent underinformed.

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 description includes @param annotations explaining both parameters: 'value' is described as the input value passed to the script, and '__mcp_response_mode' is clarified as optional with a default. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only shows types and enums. Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates adequately.

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 action: 'Run a local script and echo the input value with prefix.' This names a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it as an echo/script-running tool. However, it lacks detail about what 'prefix' refers to or which script runs, so it falls short of a 5.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over siblings like run_safe_command__execute or shell__healthz. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context hints, so it provides no guidance.

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