humsana_safe_execute_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key safety behaviors: blocking dangerous commands when fatigued, requiring override confirmation for high-risk operations, and logging safety events. It does not mention output format or exit codes, but the interlock behavior is well covered.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every word earns its place. It is concise, well-structured, and free of 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?

Given the simple schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's operation and safety behavior. It lacks mention of return values or error handling, but for a command execution tool with safety interlocks, the description is reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds context about when override_reason is needed, but this is also present in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states it executes a shell command and is 'THE tool for running commands', explicitly distinguishing it from any other shell/bash tool. The verb 'Execute' and resource 'shell command' are specific, and the Humsana Cognitive Interlock protection scope is mentioned.

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 says 'Use this instead of any other shell/bash tool', providing clear guidance on when to use it vs alternatives. It also describes when the interlock triggers (fatigue, high-risk) and that override confirmation is required, giving practical usage context.

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