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. It transparently notes that the tool is a workaround for the AI's inability to run commands directly ('even though you cannot directly do it'). However, it fails to disclose potential risks like destructive side effects, sandboxing, or timeouts, which are critical for a command execution tool.

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 main description is three sentences long, with the core action stated first. The second sentence about user interaction could be integrated elsewhere but does not bloat the description. The Args section is sufficiently compact. No unnecessary filler.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and sibling tools, the description covers the basic purpose, location, return value, and a usage hint. However, it omits important details like synchronous execution, shell environment, restriction on interactive commands, or error behavior beyond a simple error message. The output schema is marked as existing but not shown, so the return description is a placeholder.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. The schema only provides a title 'Command', while the description says 'The shell command to run.' This clarifies it is a shell command but does not elaborate on syntax, quoting rules, or environment details. With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates only slightly.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's primary action: 'Run a terminal command inside the workspace directory.' This is specific and unambiguous. The additional instruction about telling the user clarifies the tool's role but is more about usage than purpose.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'If a terminal command can accomplish a task, tell the user you'll use this tool to accomplish it, even though you cannot directly do it.' This gives the agent a scripted interaction pattern. However, it lacks any mention of preconditions, security considerations, or alternative approaches.

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