ssh_exec

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the SSH effect gate and per-invocation approval requirement, as well as the typed same-path denials (#234), which are not present in the annotations. It also documents the 'host' override behavior. It does not elaborate on the consequences of destructive commands, but the 'DESTRUCTIVE' label and destructiveHint annotation cover this.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the gating detail and parameter clarification. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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's modest complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose, the safety mechanism, and the host override. It omits explicit return-value behavior and the role of 'confirm,' but these are partially inferable from the destructive context and typical SSH behavior.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'host' parameter via the override statement and relates 'profile' to the profile/env ssh_host. However, it does not explain the 'confirm' parameter's purpose or the format of the 'command' value, leaving some semantics implicit.

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 begins with a clear verb-resource combination: 'Run a command on the managed host's OS over SSH,' which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_reachable and ssh_discover. The additional 'DESTRUCTIVE / in-band' qualifier further clarifies its operational scope.

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 when to use this tool (whenever an OS command must be executed) and includes a when-not signal: 'never the HID gate', indicating it should not be used for HID interactions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ssh_reachable or power_state, so it falls short of a 5.

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