run_terminal_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Without a shell' hints at a restricted execution environment, but nothing is said about potential mutations, security implications, process lifetime, output handling, or permission requirements. For a command-execution tool, this is a minimal disclosure.

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?

One sentence, utterly zero waste. Every word carries meaning. Front-loaded with the core action. Ideal length for this modestly complex 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain behavior more thoroughly. It omits what the return/result looks like, error behavior for disallowed commands, and whether the command is deterministic. For a tool capable of arbitrary side effects, this level of description is insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it mentions 'allowlisted command' and 'allowed folder', giving some context to the `command` and `cwd` parameters respectively. The description adds a bit of meaning but doesn't clarify expected formats, defaults, or interactions between command and cwd.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Run' + 'one allowlisted command' inside 'an allowed folder'. It distinguishes itself from file-operation siblings by being the sole command-execution tool. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself among siblings, though the distinct nature is obvious.

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 'allowlisted command' and 'allowed folder' imply usage constraints, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance is given, nor when NOT to use it. There's no mention of fallbacks or when a file operation would be preferable. Usage context is implied only.

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