run_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that commands run with Windows account permissions and that it waits for completion, which is important context. However, it does not detail timeout behaviors, output handling, or side effects beyond the full-access warning.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and then contextual warnings. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.

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 complex (arbitrary command execution with full access) and has 5 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema. The description covers the essential permission and completion semantics, but could further explain safety precautions, shell selection criteria, or effects of timeout. It is adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It offers guidance only for the shell parameter ('Use shell=auto normally') and ignores cwd, environment, and timeout_seconds. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description fails to add the needed semantic depth for most parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and states the resource ('arbitrary PowerShell/cmd/bash command') and explicitly says it waits for completion, distinguishing it from background process tools like start_process. The FULL-ACCESS note further clarifies its scope.

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?

It provides context that this is a full-access command runner that waits for completion, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like start_process or state when not to use it. The advice 'Use shell=auto normally' gives operational guidance but not alternative selection.

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