run_command_sudo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses a permission gate and the 'unknown tool' error if disabled. But it omits destructive potential, execution context, authentication nuances beyond the app setting, and response behavior, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a privileged shell command.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The capability is front-loaded, followed by the critical availability condition and error signal.

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 high-risk sudo shell command tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It covers the permission gate but omits the cwd parameter, execution environment, return behavior, and safety considerations, leaving the agent under-informed.

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% for two parameters. The description implies the 'command' parameter semantically but does not explain its format or requirements, and it completely omits the optional 'cwd' parameter, leaving both parameters undocumented beyond their names.

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 states a specific verb (Run) and resource (shell command) with the distinguishing modifier 'with sudo permitted.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling run_command, which presumably runs without sudo, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.

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 gives a key precondition—sudo tools must be enabled by the phone owner—and an error signal for when the tool is disabled. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose run_command_sudo over the sibling run_command, nor does it describe scenarios where sudo is or is not appropriate.

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