run_shell_command

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions running commands in a subprocess and navigating folders, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as security implications, error handling, output format, or execution environment. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that executes shell commands.

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 moderately concise but includes redundant advice (e.g., using 'pwd' to get the path) that may not be necessary. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but the structure could be improved by eliminating less critical details to focus on core functionality.

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 complexity of executing shell commands, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on safety, permissions, error responses, and how results are returned, which are essential for proper tool usage in this context.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some context for 'skill_name' (navigating to a folder) but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool 'run shell command in a subprocess,' which provides a clear verb+resource (run + shell command). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'load_skill' or 'read_reference_file,' leaving the specific role ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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 mentions that 'skill_name' allows navigation to a folder for convenience, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools is given, offering minimal usage direction.

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