ct_exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It details dry-run behavior, the need for confirm=True to execute, heuristic classification, auditing, fail-closed conditions for snapshots, and the undo mechanism via snapshot/rollback. This fully discloses the tool's safety and operational characteristics.

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 efficient, with clear front-loading of the core purpose. It uses multiple sentences, each adding value (dry-run, confirm, snapshot, fail-closed, audit). It is not overly verbose; however, it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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 presence of an output schema (mentioned but not provided), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers operation modes, prerequisites (PROXIMO_ENABLE_EXEC), safety mechanisms (snapshot fail-closed, allowlist), and the undo feature. This is complete for a potentially dangerous mutation tool.

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 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral context (e.g., confirm defaults to false, snapshot is fail-closed) but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Thus, score at baseline level.

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 explicitly states 'Run a command inside an LXC (ssh -> pct exec). MUTATION-CAPABLE.' This clearly identifies the verb ('run'), resource ('command inside an LXC'), and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like pve_agent_exec (for QEMU) by specifying LXC and the underlying mechanism (pct exec).

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 provides clear usage context: dry-run by default, confirm=True to execute, and snapshot=True for undo. It also notes that execution is disabled unless PROXIMO_ENABLE_EXEC is set, and it is allowlist-scoped (fail-closed). While it does not explicitly compare to alternatives, the context is sufficient for safe usage.

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