Terminal Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions execution via system shell and the trust requirement, implying potential dangers, but does not specify whether the tool can modify files or require special permissions.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words, but could be better structured (e.g., separate usage notes). Front-loads the core action.

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 tool's potential for arbitrary command execution, the description is too brief. Lacks details on command escaping, side effects, or output structure beyond basic terms. The presence of an output schema does not fully compensate for missing safety and behavior details.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage. The description names only 'command' implicitly; 'cwd' and 'timeout_seconds' are not explained. Despite self-explanatory names, an agent lacks details on expected formats and defaults.

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 that tool runs a shell command and returns stdout, stderr, and exit code. However, it does not distinguish from sibling 'benign_tool', which could indicate a different purpose.

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?

Provides a safety guideline 'Use only in trusted environments', but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives. Lacks context on prerequisites.

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