run

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'return output' but does not mention how stderr/stdout are handled, exit codes, side effects, environment variables, or whether the command runs in a sandbox. This is a significant gap 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 a single sentence, front-loaded, and contains no fluff. It is concise but arguably too terse to be fully helpful. Every word earns its place, though more content would be beneficial.

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?

The tool is simple but has nuanced behavior (output format, timeout implications, working directory) and an important sibling relationship with run_background. The description does not explain these contextual aspects, and there is no output schema to clarify what is returned. Leaves significant 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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already document command, cwd, and timeout. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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?

Identifies the action as executing a shell command and returning output. The verb 'execute' and resource 'shell command' are specific, and 'return output' implies a foreground/synchronous operation, distinguishing it from the background sibling tools.

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?

No guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_background. Does not state that this runs in the foreground, blocks for completion, or is appropriate for commands that need immediate output. Lacks any context about selection criteria.

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