ct_exec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job. It discloses mutation capability, dry-run default, environment variable guard, allowlist scoping, audit logging, snapshot behavior with fail-closed if snapshot fails, and the undo_point in results.

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 concise (about 100 words), well-structured with clear paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on behavior, safety, and snapshot option without unnecessary detail.

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, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, dry-run, execution safety, snapshot undo, and prerequisites. An output schema exists (not shown) so return values are not required in description. The description is complete for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 20% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning for 'confirm' (dry-run vs execute) and 'snapshot' (undo functionality) but does not explain 'ctid' or 'command' array format, though 'command' is implied. The 'proximo_target' is described in schema but not in description. Additional parameter context would be helpful.

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 runs a command inside an LXC container (via ssh -> pct exec) and explicitly notes it is mutation-capable. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ct_diagnose or ct_logs which have different purposes.

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 description explains when to use the tool (to run commands inside LXC), how dry-run works, and the need for confirm=True to execute. It also mentions safety prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_EXEC, allowlist). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for different scenarios.

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