ssh_execute_command

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

Given no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It highlights a non-obvious limitation: shell environment state (e.g., current directory) is not preserved. This is valuable for correct usage. It could also mention output format or error handling, but the disclosed behavior is critical.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides an essential behavioral note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description covers the non-preservation of shell state, which is important, but it omits details about output (e.g., what is returned after command execution) and error handling (e.g., what happens on timeout). For a command execution tool, the output is a key aspect not addressed.

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 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about parameters beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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's purpose: 'Execute a command on the remote host via SSH.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the context from sibling tools (SSH connection management and SFTP file operations) distinguishes this tool from alternatives.

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 provides a crucial usage guideline: shell state is not preserved between calls, and it suggests chaining commands. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool (e.g., for file transfers) or compare to siblings, though the sibling list implies the distinction.

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