run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains that read-only hosts refuse modification commands before execution, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not mention other aspects like output format, error handling, or shell environment, leaving some gaps.

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-loading the main function and then adding the crucial access-policy constraint. Every word 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?

Given the rich schema and presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential behavioral constraint (access policy) and the basic operation. It does not discuss command execution details like default shell or environment, but for this tool that is a minor gap.

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 all four parameters (host, command, timeout, working_dir) already have descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.

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 verb ('Run') and resource ('a shell command on a host'), making the core function obvious. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like read_file or service_status, but it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast itself, so it falls short of a 5.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions host access policy but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference any sibling tool. The usage context is only implied by the general nature of running commands.

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