run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It mentions timeout, secure environment, and stderr capture, but does not disclose exit code handling, output format, or what happens on timeout. These are significant behavioral gaps 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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by concise context. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or 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?

While the description covers allowed directories and timeout, it lacks critical context for a command runner: no output schema exists, and the description does not specify the return structure (e.g., object with stdout/stderr/exit code). This leaves agents uncertain about how to parse results, making it only partially 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no substantive parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, only hinting at timeout and stderr which are already in 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 states 'Execute shell commands and return their output' with a clear verb and resource. Sibling tools are all file operations, so this tool is unambiguously the command executor, distinguishing itself without needing explicit contrast.

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?

It says 'Useful for development tasks, file operations, git commands, package management, etc.', providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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