ssh_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses non-interactive execution, combined stdout/stderr capture, truncation at a size limit, exit-code surfacing (non-zero codes not hidden), and the 30s default timeout. It omits any warning that arbitrary command execution can mutate or destroy remote state and any auth/permission prerequisites.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core verb and host semantics, then behavior, then the timeout and long-running guidance. 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?

For a three-param tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs on the return side (stdout+stderr+exit code, truncation) and timeout behavior. The remaining gap is the absence of any destructive-capability or permission caveat for arbitrary shell execution.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what a `host` alias resolves to, that the timeout is overridable per call, and reconciles units (30s vs the schema's milliseconds).

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 and resource ('Run a shell command on a remote machine over SSH') and immediately scopes the host parameter to an alias from local ~/.ssh/config. This clearly separates it from siblings like ssh_read_file and ssh_write_file.

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?

Provides clear context for invocation and explicitly routes the agent to `ssh_hosts` for aliases, plus guidance to background long-running jobs rather than block. It stops short of stating when to prefer ssh_read_file/ssh_write_file over a raw shell command, so there is no explicit alternative-selection rule.

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