ssh_exec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the in-process/headless nature, auth methods, and return values (stdout, stderr, exit code). However, it does not mention potential destructive effects or output truncation behavior, though some of that is in the schema.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: first sentence gives the core action and key differentiators, second gives usage context, third covers auth and returns. Every sentence earns its place.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, auth options, and return values. It omits details like output caps and tail behavior, but those are well-covered in the schema. Overall sufficiently complete.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning auth methods (privateKeyPath or password) and return values, which is redundant with schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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's verb ('Run a command'), resource ('remote host over SSH'), and distinct characteristics ('fully in-process', 'no ssh.exe, no WSL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like winrm_exec and run_powershell.

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 explicitly says 'Use for Linux hosts or any OpenSSH target', giving clear context for when to use this tool. It implies Windows alternatives exist through sibling tool names but does not explicitly name them, so it's not a perfect 5.

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