Run workspace command

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=false, so the destructive profile is already covered. The description adds meaningful non-schema context: the risk-tiering policy and the out-of-band admin approval gate. It omits what happens on timeout, cancellation, or partial output, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and risk-tiering rule, with no redundant restatement of the title or name. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the approval workflow is fully described. Given the tool's complexity, the remaining gap is execution semantics — timeout enforcement, cwd resolution, and any output-size or rate constraints.

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% across four parameters (program, args, cwd, timeout_seconds), so the description carries the full burden — yet it mentions none of them. There is no guidance on program/args shaping, working-directory semantics, or timeout units and behavior, which an agent needs for a subprocess tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a structured subprocess inside the ToolHub workspace'), and the approval-split behavior clearly separates it from the sibling shell.run_approved. An agent can tell instantly what this does and which sibling to use for the elevated path.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: LOW-risk commands run automatically here, while MEDIUM/HIGH commands create a PENDING approval that must be granted out-of-band before invocation via shell.run_approved. This names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it.

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