npx_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it does not. It omits critical details such as potential side effects (npx may install packages), network access, or the fact that arbitrary commands are executed. 'Execute a command' states the operation but provides no safety or side-effect 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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is optimally concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. The brevity contributes to easy readability, though other dimensions capture the lack of detail.

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?

Despite having a complete parameter schema and output schema, the description lacks essential context for a command-execution tool. It does not mention security implications, when to prefer npx, or behavior around package installation. The combination of a minimal description and no annotations leaves the agent under-informed about this potentially dangerous operation.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (command, args, timeout), so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already covers semantics, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 'Execute a command with npx' clearly identifies the tool's action (execute) and resource (npx), and the 'with npx' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_cmd, npm_run, and node_run_script. The purpose is unambiguous and directly associated with the tool name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only restates the core function without mentioning scenarios, exclusions, or related tools such as npm_run or run_cmd, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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