ssh_execute_sudo

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and more than meets it. It flags that the command 'mutates remote state and can be destructive,' explains sudo -S password piping and output masking, notes readiness for Linux/Windows, cwd honoring, timeout defaults, and readonly/restricted mode constraints. This is exemplary behavioral transparency.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading the purpose and then layering behavioral details. Each sentence adds distinct value: password handling, mutability/destructiveness, directory and OS behavior, timeout, and execution modes. Slightly long but no filler.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explicitly states the return value (exit code and output) and addresses key context signals: parameters, default timeout, OS adaptation, cwd behavior, and restricted/readonly execution constraints. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the 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 covers all five parameters with descriptions, yielding 100% coverage. The description adds valuable semantics beyond the schema by explaining password piping and masking, the timeout default, cwd honoring, and sudo prepending, giving the agent operational details the schema does not convey.

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 opens with a precise, specific verb phrase: 'Runs a command with elevated privileges via sudo on the named server and returns the exit code and output.' This clearly identifies the action, the target resource, the elevation mechanism, and the expected result, making it readily distinguishable from the sibling ssh_execute tool.

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 establishes a clear use context: elevated sudo privileges on a named server, with caveats about password handling and readonly/restricted mode behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' but the sudo focus implicitly differentiates it from plain ssh_execute.

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