Bash

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: it restricts to a single allowlisted command and bans command chaining. It does not explicitly mention that commands may modify the workspace, but the destructiveHint annotation already covers that, so the description adds value without contradiction.

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, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second gives exclusions with alternatives, and the third imposes a critical safety constraint. It is front-loaded with the primary action and uses no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what can be run, what cannot, names alternatives, and sets boundaries on command composition. The workspace context is implied via open_workspace and cwd parameters. An agent can call this tool correctly without further information.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with clear descriptions (command, cwd, timeout_ms, workspace_id). The description provides example command types (tests, build, lint) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's 'Command to run.' The schema carries the burden, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('allowlisted verification command'), and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives for other operations. It is clear that this tool is for executing verification commands like tests, build, lint, typecheck, or project scripts, not for general file operations or git inspection.

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 states when to use the tool (verification commands), gives concrete examples, and provides direct exclusions with named alternatives ('use show_changes, tree, search, and read instead'). It also prohibits chaining commands with &&, pipes, redirects, or shell file readers, which is a precise usage constraint.

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