shell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the environment-variable gate and that this executes commands on the host. It does not warn about potential destructive side effects or describe how results are returned, which would matter for a shell tool.

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 short sentences with the main action first and the critical configuration constraint second. No filler or repetition; both sentences add 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 purpose and prerequisite but omits operational details such as timeouts, safety implications, and what happens on non-zero exit codes. Because an output schema exists, return format is covered elsewhere, but for a command-execution tool more risk and behavior context would make this definition 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%, and the description adds no explanation of 'command' or 'timeout_seconds'. The names are somewhat self-evident, but there is no guidance on timeout behavior, defaults, or how the command is interpreted. The description does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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?

Description says exactly what the tool does: 'Run a shell command on the Hermes host.' The verb and resource are specific and distinct from all sibling tools, so an agent can immediately tell this is the arbitrary-command execution tool.

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 clear context: intended for agents that have no terminal of their own, plus a prerequisite condition (HERMES_MCP_ALLOW_SHELL=1). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough for basic routing.

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