power_shell_open

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool opens a persistent interactive session and returns the initial banner, but it omits lifecycle expectations (e.g., needing power_shell_close) and resource implications. Some behavioral insight is present, but key details are missing.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. It immediately states the action and resource, then describes the return value, achieving high conciseness and clear structure.

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 tool with one fully documented optional parameter, the description states the purpose and return value. However, without annotations or an output schema, it does not mention the session lifecycle or how this tool fits with power_shell_close/read/write, leaving the agent to infer important workflow context.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (workingDir) with a meaningful description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific information, providing no extra value 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 uses a specific verb ('Open') and clearly identifies the resource as 'interactive PowerShell shell session on the local Windows machine', distinguishing it from SSH, ADB, and serial shell open tools. It also states the immediate return behavior ('initial banner output'), making the tool's core function unambiguous.

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 when an interactive local PowerShell session is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like power_shell_exec for one-off commands or mention session termination via power_shell_close. It provides context (local, interactive) but lacks explicit when-to-use/alternative guidance.

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