Remote SSH Operations

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows operations may be destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., that actions like remove_host_key modify remote host keys, or that some operations require authentication). Minimal value beyond 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?

Single sentence is concise but overly minimal. It lacks front-loading of key information (e.g., list of actions or critical parameters). Every word earns its place, but additional context would improve usability without adding bloat.

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?

With 19 parameters and multiple actions, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the variety of actions, how to use shared parameters, or typical usage patterns. Even with an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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% (all 19 parameters have brief descriptions). The tool description adds no extra meaning; it only says 'shared connection params.' Baseline is 3 as schema does the heavy lifting, but description does not enhance understanding of parameters.

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?

Description states 'Single-host SSH operations with shared connection params,' which clearly indicates the tool is for SSH actions on one remote host. It distinguishes from siblings like tm_files (local files) or tm_hosts (host management) by specifying SSH and single-host focus. However, it could list the specific actions (e.g., run_command, file transfer) for greater clarity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage for SSH-related tasks on a single host. No exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools are provided.

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