Run local bash command

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a 600-second timeout, concurrent execution behavior, a warning against concurrent writes to the same files, and the starting working directory. The annotations already cover destructive and open-world hints, so this description enriches rather than repeats.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then adds timeout, concurrency, use cases, and working directory in a compact set of sentences. Every sentence provides operational information; the use-case list is long but directly useful for tool selection.

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?

With an output schema present and rich annotations, the description supplies the remaining operational details an agent needs: timeout, concurrency, working directory, and common command categories. Nothing critical about invoking bash safely is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single command parameter is already described. The description adds execution semantics beyond the schema by noting that commands start in the configured base directory and that cd should be used inside the command when needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: running a shell command on the local computer using bash. The use-case list makes its general CLI scope clear, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling read/write/edit tools, especially for overlapping file operations.

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?

Gives clear contexts for use: directory listing, file discovery, grep/ripgrep, git, package managers, build/test commands, scripts, network tools, and other CLI work. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or name the sibling alternatives explicitly.

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