system_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: no shell support, no quoting, strict program name whitelist, and cross-platform abstraction. However, it does not mention return value/exit code handling or error behavior, which would be valuable for an 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary constraints. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has no output schema, so the description should clarify what happens after execution (stdout/stderr, exit code, or side effects). It does not, which leaves a notable gap. Otherwise, it covers the main execution constraints and usage context well.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: program names must come from the enum, args are passed literally without shell escaping, and cwd is relative to the configured root. This supplements the schema descriptions with practical usage constraints.

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: 'Execute one registered system program directly through a cross-platform program-and-arguments interface.' It identifies the specific verb (execute), resource (registered system program), and interface style, distinguishing it from the sibling system_environment which concerns environment information.

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 provides explicit usage rules: 'Use only program names in the enum,' 'Pass arguments separately without shell quoting,' and lists unsupported constructs (shell operators, pipelines, redirects, command substitution, environment expansion). It also warns against probing or guessing alternative executable names, giving clear boundaries for when and how to use the tool.

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