auth/sudo-rules

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the exact output text, the JSON key shape (capitalised Go field names), the no-grants sentinel string, and the fact that grants are applied by daemon/reload-config. It also confirms it is read-only and daemon-answered, matching the readOnlyHint.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, leading with what the tool returns and what it excludes. Every sentence carries information (scope, usage trigger, output format, edge case, reload coupling), though the middle sentences pack multiple facts into one long clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying return format, JSON key names, the empty-grant case, and how grants get refreshed. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% so the schema already documents output_format, but the description adds behavioral meaning: it explains what text mode emits versus json-only output and that yaml/table/wide collapse to the same JSON. That is more than the schema conveys, though not exhaustive.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (shows your privileged root grants) and precisely scopes what it covers versus what it does not ('It does not list which tools you may call at all'). The distinction from siblings like daemon/reload-config and docker/* is made explicit, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit triggers: call before a `privileged: true` request or after a permission-denied error. It also names the exception set (docker/*, daemon/reload-config) that always needs a grant, so the when/when-not logic is complete.

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