Execute Sudo Command

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds the policy condition (allowRawSudo), but does not disclose behavior when policy denies, potential side effects, or failure modes. With annotations covering destructive nature, the description adds moderate value.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core purpose and condition.

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 has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the main differentiator (sudo with policy). However, it could briefly mention the need for an open SSH session or the destructive potential, though the latter is in annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema, such as usage guidelines for sessionId or command format.

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 a command with sudo privileges, with a specific condition (allowRawSudo policy). The verb 'Executes' and resource 'command with sudo privileges' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like proc_exec, which likely runs without sudo.

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 implies use when sudo privileges are needed and the policy permits, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like proc_exec. No direct contrast with siblings is provided.

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