ssh_get_running_processes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and offers almost nothing: it doesn't say the call is read-only, whether it requires prior credential setup, whether sudo is needed, or how it behaves on unreachable hosts. Only the implicit 'get' signals a non-mutating read.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally sound. But the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency, leaving obvious gaps unaddressed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. Still, for an SSH tool in a family with explicit credential setup/clear and sudo variants, omitting the credential precondition and the local-vs-remote choice leaves the agent without information it needs to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required 'hostname' parameter, and the description adds no meaning — it doesn't clarify whether hostname is a cached SSH target, an IP, or an FQDN, nor how it relates to the credential cache. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 ("Get running processes") and scopes it to a Linux host, which is clear enough on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself textually from the sibling get_running_processes; the differentiation rests entirely on the 'ssh_' name prefix.

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 versus get_running_processes (local) or ssh_execute_ssh, and no mention of any precondition such as credentials being set up via ssh_setup_credentials. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name.

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