sudo_config

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions 'dry-run演练模式' (dry-run practice mode) which clarifies the tool's testing capability, and the examples demonstrate practical usage patterns. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (which matches the tool's sudo configuration management nature), but the description usefully adds the '支持dry-run演练模式' (supports dry-run practice mode) qualification. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the core purpose and features, and another providing concrete examples. The examples are front-loaded with practical scenarios. While efficient, the Chinese/English mixing and example formatting could be slightly cleaner, but overall it's well-structured without wasted 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 complex tool with 7 parameters, destructiveHint=true annotation, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but not comprehensive context. It covers the main purpose and includes examples, but doesn't explain important aspects like what 'install' actually does to the system, how 'remove' works, or what format the output takes. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally address return values more explicitly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it only mentions 'dry_run' in the second example and implies 'action', 'username', and 'scope' usage through examples. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Linux Sudo无密码配置管理：生成、安装、测试和管理sudoers配置' (Linux Sudo passwordless configuration management: generate, install, test, and manage sudoers configurations). It specifies the verb 'manage' and resource 'sudoers configurations' with the key feature of passwordless operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like execute_command or file_permissions that might also interact with system configurations.

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 implied usage through the two examples showing specific action scenarios (checking status and generating configs). It mentions 'dry-run演练模式' (dry-run practice mode) which gives some context about when to use that feature. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like execute_command for sudo operations or file_edit for manual sudoers file changes.

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