run_command

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

No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: runs as unprivileged user, returns stdout/stderr/exit code, uses bash -c, supports complex commands, has configurable timeout, and warns about sudo hanging. This is comprehensive.

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?

Four sentences, each with a clear function: purpose+output, sudo warning, alternative, and no extra fluff. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 execution tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: intent, return values, limitations, and timeout. Minor omission of error handling beyond exit code, but still complete enough for agent use.

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 covers all 3 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description mostly reiterates schema content; it adds slight context about supporting complex commands and timeout usage, but baseline is 3 per guidelines.

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?

Clearly states 'Execute a shell command inside a WSL distribution' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling run_privileged_command by specifying 'unprivileged user' and explicitly warns against using sudo, which differentiates its 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Do NOT include sudo... For operations that require root access use run_privileged_command instead.' This provides clear context for selecting the right tool.

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