在环境执行 SSH 命令

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it notes commands run as root and warns to use destructive commands with caution, complementing the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations. It also states the output is the command output, providing basic behavioral expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action. The bulleted usage examples are useful but could be trimmed; still, each line contributes meaningful guidance. Overall, it is efficient and well-organized.

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 straightforward tool with no output schema, the description covers the core details: what it does, common use cases, and a safety warning about root privileges. It lacks explicit mention of error handling or return format specifics, but given the simple nature, it is 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reinforces the env parameter by mentioning '与 envmgr_list 返回的名称一致' (which also appears in the schema) and offers example commands, but adds no novel parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 executes shell commands via SSH on a specified environment and returns command output. It explicitly differentiates from siblings (envmgr_list lists environments, envmgr_browser for browsing) by making the action and resource specific.

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?

Provides concrete usage scenarios (e.g., tail logs, check processes, df -h) that imply when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the context and sibling names make the intended usage clear.

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