run_as_root

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

Discloses that the tool requires visual user approval and sudo authentication, indicating it is not fully automated. Without annotations, it carries the burden of transparency, but lacks details on destructiveness, error handling, or return behavior.

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, concise sentence that includes both platform and execution context. It is front-loaded and efficient, though could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given a single required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and execution context. However, it lacks information on what the tool returns or error scenarios, which would be valuable for completeness.

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 covers 100% of parameters with a description. The tool description adds context about approval and sudo, but does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for the 'command' parameter.

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 executes a bash command as root on Linux/macOS, which is specific and distinct from typical commands. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'run_as_admin', which could cause ambiguity.

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?

Mentions visual user approval and sudo authentication as prerequisites, but does not specify when to use this tool versus run_as_admin or provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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