run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the generic action. It does not warn that running arbitrary commands can have side effects, modify the project, or execute untrusted code, which is significant for a command-runner 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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose, with no wasted content.

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?

For a broad and potentially dangerous tool that runs arbitrary commands in a project environment, the description is too sparse. It lacks any context about safety, environment behavior, or how it relates to sibling run_script and run_tool tools, making it incomplete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema already documents the single 'command' parameter with a clear description ('Command and arguments to pass to uv run'), covering 100% of parameters. The main description adds only the generic phrase 'command or script,' which does not meaningfully expand on the schema.

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 uses a clear verb ('Run') with a specific resource ('a command or script in the project environment'), making the basic purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like run_script and run_tool, which likely have overlapping purposes.

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 simply states what it does and gives no context for selecting it over run_script, run_tool, or other related commands.

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