ssh_execute_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the script is passed via stdin, but fails to describe return values (stdout/stderr), error handling, side effects, or required permissions. This leaves critical behavioral traits hidden from the agent.

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 (3 sentences + short list), front-loaded with purpose, and well-structured. Every sentence adds value, though the Args list partially duplicates the schema, which is acceptable given the schema lacks descriptions.

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 the tool executes arbitrary scripts (high complexity), the description is incomplete. It omits return value semantics (though output schema exists, it's not referenced), error behavior, and safety implications. The agent lacks crucial context to assess risks and interpret results, making this tool potentially dangerous without further documentation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section that adds meaning: clarifies script is 'multi-line bash content', session_name is 'SSH session to use', and timeout has a max of 300s. This compensates partially but could be more detailed (e.g., encoding, escaping). Baseline for 0% coverage is low, so this average effort nets a 3.

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 it executes a multi-line bash script, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_execute (single-line) and ssh_execute_background by emphasizing 'multi-line' and 'complex operations'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings, so it falls short of a perfect 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?

The phrase 'Use this for complex operations' provides vague guidance, but there is no explicit instruction on when not to use this tool or mention of alternatives like ssh_execute for single commands. This lack of clear usage boundaries is a significant gap.

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