vet_command

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

The description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it detects various destructive patterns, returns a verdict with risk_score and per-finding details, and operates sub-second locally with no API key. There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden, which it meets.

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 main purpose, followed by an enumeration of detections and return fields. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant information.

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 single parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it detects, what it returns, and its performance characteristics (sub-second, local, no API key).

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% for the single 'command' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: vetting a single shell command for destructive patterns before execution. It lists specific patterns detected, distinguishing it from sibling tools like vet_command_chain.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use inline before approving any agent-proposed command' and mentions performance characteristics. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool vet_command_chain for when to use this vs. the chain variant.

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