ssh_sudo_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it states the key fact that the command will run with sudo over SSH, implying remote, elevated execution. However, it does not mention authentication expectations, whether sudo prompts are supported, or what happens to the output/exit code, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key facts: execute, command, sudo, remote host, SSH. Every word contributes to the tool's identity.

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?

The schema is complete and self-explanatory for parameters, and the description identifies the elevated, remote nature of execution. But with no output schema and no annotation protection, the agent still lacks explicit information about return values, sudo/authentication behavior, and side effects, so the description is only moderately complete.

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%, with all six parameters documented in the input schema itself. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema carries the semantic load.

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 names a specific action (execute), a target (shell command on remote host), and a distinguishing method (via SSH with sudo). It clearly differentiates from the sibling ssh_exec by the sudo elevation requirement, so an agent can identify this tool's purpose without opening the 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?

The phrase 'with sudo' provides clear context for when this tool should be selected over the sibling ssh_exec: when a command needs elevated privileges. It does not explicitly state exclusions or name the alternative, but the context is clear enough to guide routing.

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