run_command_long

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the command runs through PowerShell.exe, has a default 2-minute timeout, a larger output buffer, and returns STDOUT, STDERR, and exit code. However, it does not mention what happens when the timeout is exceeded or potential side effects of executing arbitrary shell commands.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, usage guidance with examples and sibling distinction, and behavioral details. The description is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff.

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 command-execution tool with a rich schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, behavioral traits, and return information. It lacks details about timeout failure behavior and potential risks, but is otherwise complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around the timeout parameter by explaining the default and the 'larger output buffer' behavior, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions and examples for each parameter. The description adds limited extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Execute a long-running shell command on this Windows PC and return all output after completion.' It clearly states what the tool does and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool run_command by noting the longer default timeout and intended use cases.

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 explicitly contrasts with run_command and lists concrete scenarios where this tool is appropriate: npm install, pip install, compiling projects, downloading large files, building projects, git clone, running test suites, and backup processes. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies run_command is for shorter commands.

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