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 of disclosing behavior. It mentions returning output and warns against destructive commands, but does not specify details like exit code handling, stderr behavior, or security implications. The description adds value beyond annotations but lacks comprehensive transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and no wasted words. The warning and timeout advice are directly relevant and 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?

The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers the core behavior, safety precautions, and a key usage parameter. An output schema exists, so return format is already specified. The description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 full descriptions for all three parameters (command, workdir, timeout_seconds), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description only reiterates the timeout concept without adding syntax or format details, so the schema already handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('Run') and resource ('shell command') and clearly states the output ('return its output'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like file operations and task management by focusing on arbitrary shell command execution.

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 gives clear usage guidance by advising to set a reasonable timeout and explicitly warning against destructive commands such as 'rm -rf'. While it doesn't name alternative tools, it provides enough context to use the tool responsibly.

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