record_command_result

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It usefully states that the tool records rather than executes commands and depends on a previously run command, but it does not describe persistence, permissions, overwrite behavior, or how the result relates to an evidence bundle.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key clarification that it does not execute shell commands is placed immediately after the main action.

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 input schema is fully described and there is no output schema, so return values need not be covered. Still, for a mutation-like recording tool with no annotations, the description omits important context such as how the recorded result joins or affects an evidence bundle.

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 100%, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: recording the execution result of a command previously run by an agent. It also rules out command execution, which prevents a likely misuse. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling evidence-bundle tools such as add_assertion or verify_evidence_bundle.

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 phrase 'previously run by an agent' implies the tool should be used after a command has already been executed elsewhere. The parenthetical clarifies that this tool does not run commands, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus related evidence tools.

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