terminal_execute

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful behavior: default shell is zsh, timeout defaults to 30 seconds, and arbitrary shell syntax is supported. However, it does not disclose safety-critical traits such as potential side effects, whether stderr is included in output, exit code behavior, or what happens on timeout.

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 short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds the most important capability and defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 description covers the basic execution flow and key defaults, but with no output schema or annotations, more return behavior detail would help. It does not explain output format, error handling, or how this tool relates to background execution variants. For a powerful shell execution tool, some of that context is missing.

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%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description repeats the shell and timeout defaults but does not add new meaning beyond that, such as the implications of cwd or env. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear, specific action: execute a shell command in the macOS terminal and return output. It also usefully scopes capabilities to pipes, redirects, and chaining. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like terminal_execute_background or terminal_applescript.

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 gives general context about running shell commands, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus terminal_execute_background or terminal_applescript. It does not state any exclusions or conditions, such as preferring background execution for long-running commands.

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