run_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. It only states that it runs a command, but does not disclose potential side effects (destructive commands), permission requirements, user context, or failure modes. For an operation that executes arbitrary shell 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and target. There is zero redundancy, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter 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?

For a simple command-execution tool with a fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not mention whether output is returned, how errors are handled, or any security considerations (e.g., requiring sudo or being non-interactive). Given that it executes arbitrary shell commands, these details would materially improve completeness.

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 the single parameter's description ('The shell command to run') already explains its meaning. The tool description adds no additional context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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 shell command') and the specific target environment ('on the Hostinger VPS via SSH'), providing a specific verb and resource. Even without siblings, the purpose is unambiguous and immediately distinguishable from any other tool.

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 shell command needs to be executed on the VPS, but it provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives (though none are listed as siblings). There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool might not be appropriate, leaving usage guidance solely to inference.

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