run_command

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: commands run without a shell (pipes, redirects, && and ; are rejected), only allowlisted executables are permitted, and destructive commands require confirm=true. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent essential safety and execution context, covering the burden that annotations would normally carry.

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 three sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose, then key constraints, and finally sibling-tool guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy, delivering a high information density in a compact form.

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 moderate complexity and the lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary operational context: what it does, how it differs from siblings, execution limitations, security/allowlisting, and the confirm requirement. No significant gaps are apparent for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the command parameter is not shell-interpreted, which is crucial for constructing valid calls. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's role for destructive commands. This extra context compensates for any potential misunderstanding from the schema alone.

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 explicitly states 'Run a development command in the workspace' and enumerates the tool categories (build tools, package managers, test runners, git, language toolchains). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_build, run_tests, and run_lint by naming them as project-specific alternatives, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Prefer run_build / run_tests / run_lint' for automatic project-specific commands, and it states when to use this tool for general development commands. It also gives key usage constraints (no shell, allowlist, confirm for destructive) that help the agent decide if this tool is appropriate or if alternatives should be chosen.

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