execute_command

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that output is not returned by default, carriage return appended, wait_s capped at 30s, and the persistent pane. It doesn't mention destructiveness but shell commands inherently imply that.

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 well-structured but slightly verbose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, mechanics, default behavior, and alternatives. Could be trimmed slightly but still clear.

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 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers behavior, usage patterns, and alternatives. It references the workspace pane and provides complete guidance for using the tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains command is sent literally with carriage return, and wait_s allows sleeping and returning trailing buffer, adding meaning 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 clearly states 'Dispatch a raw shell command string into the persistent background workspace pane (FR-02)', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_terminal_buffer (for reading output) and send_control_signal (for signals).

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 tells when to use wait_s (>0 for quick commands) and when to poll (long jobs). It names the alternative tool read_terminal_buffer for observing results, giving clear usage context.

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