exec_sudo

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

Discloses the sudo execution behavior, confirmation tokens, and timeout options, but lacks details on success/failure responses, error handling, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does not fully cover behavioral traits.

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 paragraph that is relatively concise but lacks structured formatting (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability. It front-loads the main purpose but could be organized better.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers execution context and confirmation needs, but does not address return values, error handling, or examples, leaving gaps in 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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The tool description adds usage context (e.g., when to omit host), but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 commands with sudo privileges, distinguishing it from siblings like 'exec' (without sudo) and 'exec_shell'. It specifies requirements for target server and mentions confirmation tokens for dangerous commands.

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?

Provides clear guidance on specifying target via alias or host, when to omit target in single-connection scenarios, and confirmation for dangerous commands and target switching. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'exec' for non-sudo commands.

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