run_privileged

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: human approval is required, the command runs outside the sandbox, the agent never receives root, and output is captured on approval. This is substantial transparency, though it omits what happens on rejection, timeouts, or any safety caveats—more than enough to earn a 4 but not 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded ('Request a privileged shell command'), and the second sentence adds essential behavioral context. Every clause earns its place; it is a model of conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description misses critical operational details an agent needs: what happens if approval is denied, is the request asynchronous (the term 'Request' implies a wait, but it is not stated), what is the expected latency, and how does the 'reason' parameter factor into approval. It also does not mention safety or restrictions on the command. These gaps are significant for a privileged, human-in-the-loop tool.

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% and the description does not shed any light on the parameters. It never mentions 'command' or 'reason' by name, nor explains expected syntax, purpose of reason, or any parameter-specific guidance. With zero schema coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely.

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 verb ('Request') and resource ('a privileged shell command'), and the second sentence adds the key differentiator: it runs outside the sandbox. This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_url (network) and request_path_access (file access), so an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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?

It is clear the tool is for running privileged shell commands that require human approval, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of 'use this when sandbox is insufficient' or 'instead of sandbox_status'. The context is implied but not made explicit.

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