terminal_commander

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: safety mechanisms (strict allowlist, blocked dangerous patterns), platform specifics (Windows CMD/PowerShell), and examples of allowed commands. It doesn't cover error handling or output format, but provides substantial operational context.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose and safety constraints, followed by specific examples. Every sentence adds value, though the list of allowed commands could be slightly more concise.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about safety constraints, allowed commands, and usage examples. It doesn't describe the return format or error behavior, but covers most essential operational aspects given the complexity.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('executes') and resources ('Windows CMD or PowerShell command on the local machine'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on safe command execution rather than code execution, document search, or GitHub operations.

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?

It explicitly defines when to use this tool ('to run git status, dir, npm install, tsc --noEmit, etc.') and provides clear alternatives by naming sibling tools (code_executor, doc_search, github_repo_reader), though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it beyond the allowlist constraints.

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