shell_integrate

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 that it 'types one short line that reads the integration file', distinguishes the server's own file from a user-installed copy on another host, and warns when the reply will say the file is missing. It does not state permission requirements or what happens on partial failure, but the operational behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then conditions; every sentence carries real information. It is dense and slightly meandering with parentheticals, but no sentence is 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers prerequisites, host/file selection, and shell constraints thoroughly. Minor gaps around failure modes and permissions remain, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `force`, `session`, and `timeout_s`. The prose explains the prompt-context around `force` and the host/file distinction relevant to invocation, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Add shell integration to the bash now waiting at the prompt', and clarifies what it enables ('exact command boundaries and exit statuses for `run`'). An agent can tell what the tool does, but it never explicitly differentiates itself from siblings like `run`, `expect`, or `guide` by name.

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?

Explicitly covers when it is NOT needed ('Sessions started without a `command` have it already'), when it IS needed (ssh/`su -` fallback to prompt matching), and where to call it ('call this at its prompt, typically right after `run ssh host`'). Names the prerequisite installer command and the alternative that needs no setup.

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