aletheia_safe_bash

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavior, and it does: it lists several categories of commands that will be blocked (rm -rf, formatting, fork bombs, credential harvesting, privilege escalation, unauthorized network egress). It could add what happens when a command is blocked or what the shell/environment looks like, but the core safety behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the identifying verb and resource. The phrase 'inline sub-millisecond Signature S3 scope creep protection' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the rest of the sentence is dense and useful.

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?

For a simple three-parameter executor, the schema plus the safety block list cover most invocation needs. However, there is no output schema and no description of return/error behavior when a command is blocked, which is a meaningful gap for a shell-execution 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents command, cwd, and timeoutMs clearly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that commands are safely evaluated, so the baseline score applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Execute a shell/bash command') and goes on to list the protected operations, so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. The 'bash' focus differentiates it from clearly distinct siblings such as aletheia_safe_sql.

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 makes the tool's intended use obvious: run shell/bash commands under a safety wrapper. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the bash-versus-SQL distinction among siblings plus the explicit safety scope gives clear context.

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