Execute Command

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'no sudo' and does not explain the confirm_code parameter, whether execution is synchronous, or what response is returned, leaving critical behavior undisclosed.

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 with zero filler content. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes a key constraint ('no sudo') without unnecessary words.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is starkly incomplete. It omits important contextual details like the purpose of confirm_code and whether the tool is synchronous or asynchronous relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains 'command' and 'machine' but provides no meaning for 'confirm_code', which remains ambiguous despite its suggestive name.

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 'Execute a command on a machine (no sudo)' clearly identifies the action (execute), the resource (command on a machine), and the scope (no sudo), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like sudo-exec and exec-async-sudo.

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 implies a usage constraint ('no sudo') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as exec-async or sudo-exec. The exclusion is implicit rather than directly naming fallback tools.

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