ssh_execute

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important behavioral constraint: key-based authentication only, which rules out password or agent prompting. It says nothing about whether the command is non-interactive, how output or exit codes are surfaced, or what happens on timeout/connection failure — significant gaps for a remote execution tool.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though the parentheses carry the only differentiating detail at the tail.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs more than this — notably how results and failures are returned, whether profile overrides host/username, and whether execution is blocking for the duration of the timeout. The description leaves the entire behavioral surface of a remote execution tool undocumented.

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 defaults for port, timeout, identity_file, and the profile alternative are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the auth-mode constraint that explains why identity_file matters, which is a marginal but real addition over the schema.

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: execute a command on a remote host over SSH. An agent can distinguish it from the SSH-profile management siblings (save_ssh_profile, list_ssh_profiles) and from local execution tools. It does not explicitly differentiate it from generic siblings like execute_command, so it stops short of a 5.

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 choose this over execute_command, run_template, or wave_run_in_block, which all appear in the sibling list and could plausibly run commands. The only usage constraint given is the authentication mode, not the selection criteria.

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