run_cmd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and output, but does not mention potential side effects, execution privileges, error handling, or that arbitrary commands can be run. This is similar to the mid-tier example where mutation tools lacked safety/reversibility details.

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 two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides usage context. No filler or redundant information.

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, the description covers the purpose and usage guidelines. The output schema handles return-value documentation, and parameter descriptions cover the inputs. It lacks deep behavioral caveats, but given the tool's simplicity and available structured metadata, it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both command and timeout, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description does not add extra contextual meaning about parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Execute a CMD command and return the output') which clearly defines what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like run_powershell by explicitly mentioning CMD context.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: 'legacy batch operations, tools that behave differently under CMD, or when PowerShell is unavailable.' This clearly guides the agent on when to select this tool over alternatives.

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