Single tool 'run_command' has a clear verb-noun name and acceptable schema with three parameters (command, workdir, stdin). However, the description is generic ('Run a command on this machine') and lacks critical safety guidance for a destructive tool. Parameters have type definitions and brief descriptions, but lack constraints (no timeout, no command validation, no allowlist). No output schema is documented. The tool is inherently high-risk (arbitrary command execution) yet has no error handling guidance, confirmation pattern, or permission checks. This is a dangerous tool presented without adequate safeguards.

• Add destructiveHint annotation to run_command in the tool definition to signal to clients that this tool modifies system state.
• Document the output schema explicitly: {stdout: string, stderr: string, exitCode: number, success: boolean}. Include this in the tool description or a separate schema field.
• Implement input validation: add a 'timeout' parameter (default 30s, max 300s), document allowed command patterns, and reject dangerous commands (rm, dd, mkfs, etc.) with a clear error message.
• Expand the description to 100+ characters explaining: (1) what it does, (2) that it is irreversible, (3) when to use it, (4) example safe commands. E.g., 'Execute shell commands on the host machine. WARNING: Commands are irreversible and can delete files or crash systems. Use only for safe, read-only operations or with explicit user confirmation. Examples: ls, pwd, grep.'
• Add a 'dry_run' boolean parameter (default false) to preview command output without executing, or implement a separate 'preview_command' tool that shows what would happen without side effects.