runRemoteCommand

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions execution and a timeout tip, omitting how output is returned, whether the call is blocking, error handling, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a remote command execution tool.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and a useful tip second. There is no redundancy or filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the caller receives (e.g., stdout/stderr, exit code, errors), but it does not. It also fails to position the tool relative to its siblings, leaving the overall operational context incomplete for a command execution 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 already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to increase timeout for long-running commands, providing actionable context beyond the schema's basic type and default info.

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 it executes a shell command on an SSH host, specifying a concrete verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling runCommandBatch, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like runCommandBatch. The only usage tip concerns increasing the timeout for long-running commands, which is a parameter adjustment, not a tool-selection criterion.

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