run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses the critical behavior that commands are not executed. However, it only says 'Record' without explaining what recording means (e.g., whether it returns anything, persists data, or validates the command), leaving minor ambiguity.

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 sentence of eight words, with no repetition or filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not state what happens after recording—whether it returns a value, logs the command, or requires follow-up. The core behavior is clear, but the absence of return-value information makes the context only partially complete.

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 schema gives 'command' as a string with no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying it is a 'shell command' and that it is 'simulated', which helps the agent understand the expected input, even though it omits examples or syntax details.

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 the specific verb 'Record' with the resource 'simulated shell command' and explicitly states 'without executing it', which clearly defines the tool's function. This distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which deal with issues, pull requests, files, or comments.

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 description implies usage when a simulated command is needed, and the phrase 'without executing it' suggests safety for testing. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use instructions, exclusions, or comparisons to alternatives, leaving the guidance implied rather than direct.

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