sitebay_site_shell_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions command types (WP-CLI, system commands) and return details. It omits critical behavioral traits like security implications, permission requirements, execution timeouts, or error handling, which are essential for a shell 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but could be more concise by integrating parameter explanations into the main text rather than separate sections.

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 tool's complexity (shell execution with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and some parameters but misses behavioral details and full parameter semantics, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'fqdn' and 'command' with examples, but ignores 'cwd' and 'auto_track_dir' entirely. This partial coverage leaves half the parameters undocumented, meeting only the baseline for minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Execute a shell command') and resource ('on a WordPress site'), with examples distinguishing it from siblings like sitebay_site_edit_file (file editing) or sitebay_wordpress_proxy (proxy operations). It directly addresses what the tool does without being tautological.

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 implies usage for shell commands on WordPress sites, mentioning WP-CLI and system commands, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like sitebay_wordpress_proxy or sitebay_site_edit_file. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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