cmd_exec

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

With no annotations available, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that CMD is used and that all drives are supported, but it does not warn about potential side effects of arbitrary command execution, privilege requirements, or what happens on errors. This is minimal for a shell execution 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence. It front-loads the core action and adds one clause of scope without any filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 is incomplete for a command execution tool. There is no output schema, yet the description does not mention return values (e.g., stdout, stderr, exit code). It also lacks behavioral caveats and does not contrast with sibling tools like powershell_exec. The schema covers parameters, but overall tool context is underspecified.

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%, with each parameter (command, env, working_dir) already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Execute a command using Windows CMD.' It names the specific resource (command) and the interface (Windows CMD), and the added detail 'Supports all drives and Windows commands' distinguishes it from sibling tools like powershell_exec.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies broad usability but does not state exclusions or mention the existence of powershell_exec or other command-execution options. There is no 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' framing.

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