trigger_remote_training

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the dry-run behavior but does not disclose potential destructiveness (e.g., overwriting running jobs), authentication requirements, or what happens on error. Insufficient for an SSH-based training launch.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity; a slightly longer description could add value without losing conciseness.

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 having an output schema (assumed), the description lacks essential context: parameter semantics, safety warnings, prerequisites (SSH keys?), and what constitutes a successful launch. Incomplete for a potentially destructive 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?

Description provides no explanation of the two required parameters (target, command). Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent has zero guidance on what values to provide for target (e.g., hostname, IP) or command (e.g., script path).

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 launches remote training via SSH, with a specific condition (dry-run unless FTOS_SSH_* configured). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'dry_run_remote_config' which is for configs, not training.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The dry-run condition is mentioned but does not help the agent choose between this and other training-related tools like 'dry_run_remote_config' or 'ssh_remote_execute' (if existed).

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