rport_ssh_exec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals important behaviors: password sourced from RPORT_SSH_PASSWORD, tunnel closed at the end unless keep_tunnel=true, and shell features like pipes and sudo. It does not cover failure modes, return values, or timeout behavior, but the most critical operational details are present.

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, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by credential handling, the differentiation from rport_exec_command, and tunnel lifecycle. 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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, credential source, tunnel cleanup, and the capability difference from a sibling. It does not explain the output format, timeout behavior, or error handling, but the agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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 60%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It does: it explains the password source, the user fallback behavior (tries pi then queo), and the semantics of keep_tunnel. It does not describe client_id or timeout_sec, but the provided schema already defines their types and constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: creates an SSH tunnel and executes a command on the Pi as user pi or queo. It explicitly distinguishes itself from rport_exec_command by highlighting pipes and sudo support, making the purpose and differentiation clear.

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 names the alternative rport_exec_command and explains the key difference: this tool supports pipes and sudo. It also gives a practical guideline about the password coming from .env and never asking in chat. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention other alternatives like rport_create_tunnel.

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