shell_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses what a call proves (real host vs sandbox), but says nothing about what configuration fields are returned or whether the output format is stable. Adequate for a read-only info tool, but not rich.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the practical rationale for calling it. No filler, though the line breaks split a single thought mid-sentence.

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 zero-parameter, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, timing, and the meaning of a successful call. Only the shape of the returned configuration data is left unspecified, which is minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('how this server is configured and what environment commands see'), which is clearly distinct from the execution-oriented siblings like shell_execute and shell_start. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the informational nature is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly recommends calling it first in a session and gives the reason (verifying the server runs on the real host as the real user, not in Quick's sandbox). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternative, but the timing guidance is concrete.

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